Steve Bartman's my idol

Rock...I have forgotten more than you'll EVER know. I can guarantee you that. I am not advocating putting the Sox in debt...let's just use up more of the PROFITS to give us the best chance of defending our crown.

If you're satisfied with just contending...that's fine for you. I'm not. I want at least 1 more championship. I don't care if we suck in 2010, especially if we repeat, three-peat, etc.

It'll be a cold day in Hell when I can get schooled by you, "professor".

BUT...if I wanted to borrow money against the value of the house, it has increased by $50K! The value of the team can/will only increase...history has shown that baseball teams do not go down in value. Here's where I'm coming from...I tasted championship ball last year and want to taste it again (and again). IF we can improve, we should. If we can repeat, we should AT ALL COSTS!

One word...LEVERAGE! The Sox can always borrow against future value to make up for any deficits!!!

No one's been schooled yet!

The current Sox ownership paid something like $25-30 million for the team; it is currently valued at more than $300 million. Is $300 million more than $30 million? I'm not sure...evidently I'm bad with numbers.

According to Brooks Boyer, they have gone from a 10K base to over 20K. I think that constitutes "double". (I wasn't a math major!)

Operating on a budget means not spending more than you have. The Sox are FAR from spending more than they have or make.

I don't know the final figures, but the Sox made a s***tload of money in 2005. They have more than doubled their season ticket fan base. They have to had made millions on world series related sales. They cannot be hurting for money. (I hate when rich people "cry poor"!)

BINGO! G-d is THE Judge.

I do not believe that all Islam is evil (in fact, I have some very close friends who are Muslims.). All I am saying is that it is pretty easy to make that assumption based on the Koran AND recent history.

My point is...one one be EXTREMELY hard-pressed to find anything in the Old or New Testaments that can even be remotely interpreted that non-believers should perish. Not so for the Koran.

Ummm...Muslims slaughtering Christians in Bethlehem, Muslims slaughtering the Sudanese, Bosnia vs Serbia, US v AlQueda, Muslims v Israel, etc.,

There is a HUGE difference...if you were to go back over past 10 years, and look at all of the world's wars, armed conflicts, etc., during that period, how many did NOT involve Muslims??? Not to mention that Jew Watch is based on opinion, NOT factual data! Jew Watch From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Frank Weltner) Jump to: navigation, search Jew Watch is an antisemitic website. According to its supporters, Jew Watch "reports accurate information regarding Jewish ownership and control over mass media and politics." Jew Watch describes its objective as "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide." The website asserts that "Jew Watch is a Not-For-Profit Library for private study, scholarship, or research." The site achieved notoriety when it emerged as the first result in a Google search for the word Jew. Contents [hide] 1 Content 2 Authorship 3 Jew Watch and Google 4 References 5 External links [edit] Content Screenshot of Jew Watch's home page, April 6, 2004Jew Watch features an archive of opinion, writings, articles and links, organized in the form of a Web directory. Its material is organized under topic heads such as "Jewish-Zionist-Soviet Anti-American Spies," "Jewish Communist Rulers & Killers," "Jewish Terrorists," "Jewish Controlled Press," "Jewish Entertainment," "Zionist Occupied Government," "Jewish Communists," "Jewish Atrocities," "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms," "Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations," "Jewish World Conspiracies" and many others. Jew Watch claims that the United States is ruled by a "Zionist-Occupied Government," that Communism was invented by Jews and was a Jewish plot to enslave the world, that Jews control the world finance system and the media. The site links to others which speculate that Jews have committed or are planning genocide against Christians and against the Palestinian people, and that the Holocaust of World War II either never happened or was greatly exaggerated (Holocaust Denial). Jew Watch also has a large list of names of celebrities and historical figures which it claims are Jewish or of Jewish descent. The site has a number of quotations which are purported to be from the Talmud or Jewish figures; without footnotes or proper citations these are impossible to verify; others are lifted entirely from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion a well-known anti-semitic forgery written in the late 19th Century. Jew Watch purports to expose Jewish crimes against humanity. Its stated position is that Jews are responsible for every major war in the last 150 years, that Judaism hates all races of humanity (especially whites), and dominates the world by proxy through the United States. At the same time, it alleges in the documents stored that global Jewry seeks to destroy the United States itself since its power may soon be turned against Jewry. On World War II, Jew Watch also holds documents that allege that the Holocaust was in fact the rain of fire over Europe waged at the behest of global Jewry, and that the overwhelming bulk of European Jews safely survived the war sheltered as refugees in the concentration camps. According to documents in Jew Watch, deaths Jews did suffer were from the typhoid epidemics following in the wake of the destruction of European sewage systems and supply-lines of food and heating fuels through bombing. The website alleges that the Jewish end-game is not so much world rule, as destruction of humanity especially whites, who collectively form the greatest threat to Judaic anti-racial conditioning. [edit] Authorship The main author of Jew Watch is Frank Weltner, a retired librarian and activist in the National Vanguard, a white separatist website and movement. Weltner has also been known on WGNU radio as "Couch Potato" since 1992. In January 2005 Weltner's show was taken off WGNU by the management. Jew Watch's main administrative contact, Weltner, is also listed as the copyright holder and technical contact for several other racialist and anti-Semitic websites, including enslavementofmankind.com and ethnicsurvivalkit.com. The site couchpower.com contains a listing of Weltner's websites. Frank Weltner did not always have such extreme anti-Semitic views. For several years Weltner lived with an openly gay Jewish man named Jerry Rabushka. Rabushka and Mr Weltner each half owned the 3 bedroom home in which they lived. Despite Weltner's tirade against Jews and other minorities, homosexuals have never been one of Weltner's targets. Rabushka says their relationship dissolved when Weltner's views became more extreme. In 2005 Weltner was sued by the Missouri attorney general to stop him from collecting donations for Hurricane Katrina victims. "It's the lowest of the low when someone solicits funds" this way, Mr. Nixon said in an interview before announcing the lawsuit. "We don't want one more penny from well-meaning donors going through this hater." A neo-Nazi figure linked to Jew Watch is Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan activist in Alabama who now heads a group called Stormfront. Black describes himself at his personal website as having been "active in the White patriot movement for 30 years." Some sources say that Black is, or until recently was, the technical contact of the domain name of both Jew Watch and the Stormfront website. [edit] Jew Watch and Google Jew Watch gained much publicity in 2004 when it became the first website listed in the Internet search engine Google under "Jew" in April 2004. A Google bomb campaign was, for a time, successful in placing Wikipedia's article "Jew" in the top spot. Jew Watch, in February 2005 was once again the first website listed on Google's American site, with Wikipedia's article coming second; by August the positions had reversed again. On other Google sites this was not the case; for example, on Google's Canadian site (www.google.ca) Wikipedia's article was first, and Jew Watch is not in the top ten. Google insists that these results are the result of computer ranking algorithms, and are thus not directly decided by Google. Google has researched this matter and believes that one reason for this result is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context while Jews more often refer to each other as "Jewish" [1], citing a couple of sites where usage of these words is discussed, see especially [2]. The increasing publicity has resulted in many news sources, weblogs and general information sites to link to Jew Watch. This creates an unintentional (or intentional) Google bomb. In May 2004, Steven Weinstock launched an online petition to remove Jew Watch from Google. "When performing a search for the word 'Jew' on Google, the first Web site listed is Jewwatch.com, a site that has been notorious for being anti-Semitic," Weinstock wrote in a widely disseminated e-mail. Weinstock said he had contacted Google three times about the site but had not received a response. "In order for Google to remove this, they would need a petition of over 50,000 requests," Weinstock said. He set up an online petition site called RemoveJewWatch.com. Within a few days 2,000 signatures had been added to the list. Google reportedly said that they would not remove Jew Watch from their search engine no matter what petitions were presented. By mid-2004 the site had collected over 125,000 signatures, mostly favorable. The "removejewwatch" site went offline but can now be found at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html. Weinstock's attempts have been mocked at a site called removejews.com Google's response, however, has been a sponsored link for the search term since 2004 which can be found at their site. It explains how Google results are automatically ranked by computer algorithms. National Vanguard writer Kevin Strom claimed that Weinstock's efforts resulted in a "censor-fest" of Jew Watch and insisted "Our race deserves to live in freedom, and no trickster, thug, or con man can stop us from achieving that goal. We are going to win".[3] John Goth, in the same publication, described his "disgust" as a "loyal White man" at "the recent Jewish attacks on free speech and particularly, on JewWatch.com." [4] To this day Jew Watch fluctuates between the #1 and #2 positions for the search term “Jew” on the American Google site. (When Jew Watch is #2, the #1 slot is normally held by the Wikipedia article, Jew). [edit] References David Irving's Website. [edit] External links Jew Watch Google:Jew Official letter of apology to Anti-Defamation League from Google's president "Removejewwatch" site Google's statement on the issue National Vanguard article by Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Vanguard on Jew Watch and Google, providing a conspiracy theory. Jew Watch, Google, and Search Engine Optimization by Seth Finkelstein After the Storm, the Swindlers Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch" Categories: Anti-Semitism | Neo-Nazi websites ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsSign in / create account Navigation Main Page Community Portal Current events Recent changes Random article Help Contact us Donations Search Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this article This page was last modified 21:34, 21 January 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see

Did you check out those sites (prior to passing judgment on them)?

1. I was quoting someone ELSE! 2. Please explain to me how hunting qualifies as a sport. IMO, you are "hunting" an animal that a) doesn't know it's being hunted; and B) cannot defend itself. You are using all of the benefits of modern technology, i.e. high powered scopes, scent masking agents, tree stands, etc. 200 years ago, these same animals were being hunted (for survival, NOT "sport") by men with primitive firearms, bow and arrow, etc.

1. We'd be adding a Gold Glove. 2. It's not YOUR money! The Sox can more than afford to add Abreu!

Abreu - Pods - Dye is MUCH better than Pods - Anderson - Dye!

Please check out Islamundressed.com thereligionofpeace.com

The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims The Qur’an’s View toward Christians and Jews: Muhammad’s actions against the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir Jews, the Qurayza Jews, and several individuals identified as Jewish in the Qur’an have been previously chronicled and will not be repeated here. An important principal in the Qur’an holds that humanity is divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. The "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) come in behind all other Muslims, including Women and slaves, but they do come in slightly ahead of Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists and others who are regarded as worthless and having no soul. In fact Muslims are forbidden to even have Jewish or Christian friends, which will be further studied in the chapter "The Psychology of Jihad". 58:19 Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers! 4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan). With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Qur’an like: – "Worst of Creatures, Perverse, and Friends of Satan", it seems impossible to characterize Islam as tolerant and harmless. By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’ ("An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness, the moral standards, the civil conduct and actions of its members, and in improving peaceful relationships with all others"), Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Clearly early Islam was neither harmless nor tolerant of non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies throughout history, while tolerance, charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent. The fruits of orthodox Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that they can and should be judged. Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this; When Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, instead they are expected to be ruthless in the continued destruction of all their enemies. 47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. 48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. The final words reported from the mouth of the dying Muhammad were a curse on the favored ‘People of the Book’. From Ibn Sa'd page 322: When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said: "Allah's damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship." His appetite to do violence to non-Muslims remained unquenchable his whole life, the final words coming from his mouth a curse on those he had spent his life destroying. Despite his victories and the multitudes he had murdered, he left this world bitter he could not have done more, with instructions to his followers to carry on in that effort. The bitterness of this final utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl, obviously still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam. With revenge a glorified mandate for Muslims, it seems unlikely they will ever collectively ‘get over it’. In its attitudes toward Jews today, the Muslim world resembles Germany in the 1930s. That was a time when state-sponsored insults, cartoons, conspiracy theories, revisionist history, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the wholesale mass murder that was to follow. Outside Israel, violence against Jews is also persistent: Jewish buildings blown up in Argentina, France, and elsewhere, Daniel Pearl's murder in Pakistan and other Jews targeted for stabbings worldwide. The essential training of their young to vilify Jews and Westerners continues to serve as the psychological preparation for this kind of murder and mayhem against Jews, and now against Americans, and tomorrow against Japanese, Chinese, Australians, New Zealanders, Vietnamese, etc etc etc, …and on and on, …until the vision of the whole world as Islamic is achieved. To decide if Islam promotes bigotry and racism, the rules governing killing of non-Muslims should always be compared to the following Islamic rule governing the killing of brothers enshrined in the Qur’an: And whosoever killeth a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be Hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath shall be on him and His curse, and (there) is prepared for him a great torment (4:93) The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslim Family Members: Earlier it was pointed out that Muslims broke ties of allegiance and friendship with allied tribes and near family members. The Qur’an takes this a step further. Sura 58:22 shows that family blood ties are broken. Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to fight and kill relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. The principals (and purpose) governing Muslim conduct with non-believing relatives will be further studied in the chapter "The Psychology of Jihad".

Violence, terror, and Islam: A plea to abandon the cocoon Mahfuzur Rahman Early in January 2003, in Kashmir, three Muslim women were slaughtered for showing their face in public. Also in January 2003 three Christian missionaries were gunned down in Yemen. In November 2002 Nigerian Muslims took to the street and at least two hundred people lay dead and hundreds wounded. In October 2002, in Bali, Indonesia, a bomb claimed nearly two hundred lives. In September 2002, in Karachi, seven Pakistani Christians were gunned down, execution style, at a charity organization. In January 2002 Daniel Pearl, an American journalist was abducted in Karachi and was later butchered. In March 2002 five people were killed in an attack on a church in Islamabad, Pakistan. In October 2001, in the Punjab, Pakistan, sixteen worshippers were killed in an attack on a church. In September 2001 two aircraft, piloted by suicide bombers, crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, killing three thousand people. This is not meant to be a catalogue of violence committed around the world in recent years. Such a catalogue would be unconscionably longer than the above account and would, for example, include the Gujarat riots of last year that claimed a thousand lives. Going only a few more years in the past, it would include the massacre of twenty-nine Muslim worshippers in the West Bank of Palestine by a Jewish fanatic. What, however, distinguishes the events listed above from some of the other acts of violence is their common denominator: all of them were acts by Muslims who were waging war against the infidels or against those fellow Muslims who did not conform to their idea of Islam. This is not to suggest that violence by Islamic fundamentalists is entirely new. In Algeria, dozens of women have been killed over the past decade for not wearing the hijab. State- sponsored terror in various forms to enforce strict Islamic tenets is endemic in Iran and was notorious in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. How does one, especially a Muslim, look at the increasing use of violence and terror, whether to defeat the infidel or to make better Muslims out of otherwise ordinary Muslims? "What went wrong?", a leading western scholar of Islam has asked in the title of his latest book and that question has probably been on many minds. One might even ask whether there is anything "wrong" at all. Among the Muslims themselves a systematic examination of such questions has, however, been rare. It is as if Muslim thinking has shelved itself in a cocoon, from which it is unable to extricate in order to have a better look at Islam in a changed world. How have Muslims reacted to some of the most recent acts of terror and violence? In most cases, in must be acknowledged, the silence was deafening. Apart from official condolences and assurances that the culprits would be brought to book, few voices have been raised against atrocities committed on innocent non-Muslims and non-observant Muslims. Newspapers have certainly not filled with protests. People have not demonstrated in the streets, either in the country where the violence was committed or elsewhere. Massive street demonstrations to protest oppression and injustice are a normal feature of the political landscape in most non-Arab Muslim countries. How many people took to the street in protest in Pakistan, for example, when the Christian worshippers were gunned down or when Sunni fanatics butchered Shias or when Shia extremists murdered Sunnis? Or in Kashmir, when the three women were murdered? This is not to suggest that nobody worries about the increasing incidence of violence. But the worry is strangely muted and, more importantly, couched in distinctly defensive terms. The dominant reaction to acts of violence by fellow religionists has been to point out that Islam does not approve of them. It is enough to summarize here the arguments generally put forward. For that purpose I shall use below a newspaper article that I came across immediately after the Bali bombings, and a number of others that appeared since September 11, 2001. These are fairly typical and the arguments can be stated in general terms without attribution. Islam was never a religion of violence and intolerance and therefore, so the argument went, the Bali bombing and other acts of terror were unIslamic and hence condemnable. The Prophet of Islam himself was a kind and compassionate man and was opposed to any unjustifiable violence. A number of ahadith have been cited to suggest how he abhorred violence and intolerance. One hadith, for example, states: "He is not one of us who incites class prejudice or fights for class interest or die in its pursuit". In another he said: "Seek refuge from the curse of the oppressed ….for the portals of God are always open to the oppressed and innocent ones". Furthermore, "He who knowingly lends support to tyranny is outside the pale of Islam". I am not sure that the ahadith cited are strong evidence of indictment of violence and terror in the present context, and those who cite them have probably not done a good job in scouring the relevant literature. But I shall leave it at that for the present and move on to the Qur’an. Among the verses of the Qur’an that have often been quoted to show that Islam does not condone violence are the following: " Let there be no compulsion in religion "[sura Baqara. (II.256). (Translation by Yusuf Ali in this and in the rest of the quotations from the Qur’an)]; " Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians….shall have their reward from their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" [ ibid. II:62]; "Thus have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced…." [ ibid. II: 143]. In some translations the last citation is "We have made you a moderate sect", the emphasis here being on moderation. It can be argued that all of these statements can be interpreted in ways other than in defense of Islam as a religion of peace, but this need not detain us here. In one of the latest writings (after Bali) I also found this quotation: " O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other" [sura Hujurat. (XLIX: 13)]. Also cited as codes of modesty and decorum required of a Muslim: " When a (courteous) greeting is offered to you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy" [ Sura Nisa. (IV:86)]. The idea behind the last citation is, of course, to suggest that a people who are required to be so polite cannot be expected to be violent or cruel at the same time. Perhaps more immediately relevant to the issues of intolerance, the breeding ground of violence, is this verse: "To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single People, but (His Plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues." [ Sura Maida. V: 48 ]. This has been seen as an affirmation of pluralism. On the other hand, Muslims whose acts of violence the above quotations are meant to decry can come up with an array of quotations from the Qur’an and hadith as well as instances from Islam’s history to bolster their point of view. They could, for example, cite the following from the Qur’an: "….fight and slay the Pagans whenever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" [sura Tauba. (IX:5)]. There is, in the same verse, advice to relent but only if the adversary becomes true Muslims, " if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity…." . A comparable verse is: " Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" [sura Tauba ( IX:29)]. It is easy to bring in more quotations in the same vein but this is unnecessary. This also ends my reference to recent writings. The history of mankind is spattered with blood and religious wars have been among the bloodiest. The wars among Catholics and Protestants in Europe and the Inquisitions stand out in the history of man’s cruelty to man for the sake of his soul. Islam’s history was no exception. And, again, those who wish to find support for their cult of cruelty can find a great deal of it in history. That history, for example, tells the story of the massacre of the entire male population of Banu Quraiza believed to number between 600 and 700, soon after the Battle of the Trench in the year 627 AD/ 5 AH. There have been differences of opinion on the circumstances of the massacre, but the magnitude of the blood bath has never been in question. The enormity of the massacre was such that some Islamic commentators have found it necessary to point out that it was done according to Jewish law. This is a reference, specifically, to Moses’ command to his people in the Old Testament: "And when the LORD thy God hath delivered [the besieged city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.[ Deuteronomy:20:13 ] Those who are willing to murder for religion can also find sustenance in what I believe to be the first assassination in Islamic history. The Jewish poet Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf , of the tribe Banu Nadir, was a sworn enemy of Islam and was writing slanderous poems about the religion and its prophet. He soon become insufferable to the Muslims and a group of assassins, led by Muhammad b. Maslama, and with the express blessing of the Prophet (SM), tricked him out of his house at night and murdered him. Ibn Ishaq ( d. 622 AD/ 151AH.) the Arab historian, describes the assassination in gory detail.[ Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, English translation entitled The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1967.p.368.] The Sahih Al-Bukhari [ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Vol. 5. 1997. pp. 221-223] fully confirms the story. A Muslim who does not condone violence would of course point out that Arab society, both Pagan or Jewish, in the early days of Islam was a violent one and that certain events and Qur’anic statements should be judged in their historical context. That violence is easy to illustrate, and some of that were meted out to the Muslims in the early days of Islam. For example, the Prophet (SM) had sent a group of six Muslims to some Bedouin tribes of Najd, at the latter’s request, to instruct them in practices of Islam. All of them were brutally killed. Two of them were sold to the Quraish in Mecca and were killed by crucifixion, a practice not considered unusual in those days. This, however, is unlikely to sway those who see themselves as custodians of ‘true’ Islam which to them is unvarying and eternal, and to whom there is no ‘historical context’ to necessary cruelty. They would only point out that the six murdered Muslims were among the early martyrs of Islam and would commend them. And they could claim to be able to reel off from history a whole series of events and actions, which are cruel only to the infidels and today’s Muslim bleeding hearts who do not want true Islam established. They could, for example, cite the following punishment meted out by the Prophet (SM) himself as an example of legitimate cruelty: A group of people from out of Medina lived in the city for sometime and then expressed their desire to return home. The Prophet (SM) provided them a shepherd on their return journey. At one point these ungrateful people killed the shepherd. According to the Sahih Al-Bukhari, "When the news reached the Prophet (SM), he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron". [ibid. Vol.7. p.329] It is impossible for two opposing points of view of Islam -- one that sees only peace, harmony, and humanity in Islam and the other that legitimate violence and even cruelty -- both to be right. This also makes it impossible to take a dispassionate look at violence that uses religion as its springboard through the lens of religion itself. Religion, or rather its standard bearers, when it sought peace in its dealings with people of other faith, has done so only on its own terms. Islam, the newest of the great monotheist religions was no exception. Some of the quotations from the Qur’an given above illustrate this. To attempt to examine the violence we have been talking about from an ‘Islamic’ viewpoint alone would be to entangle oneself in the cocoon I alluded to above. Muslims who protest against violence, cruelty and terror and believe in non-violence would do far better to look at these issues through other lenses as well. It is all too easy to forget that, in large parts of the world, society is more humane and tolerant today than it was only a couple of hundred years ago, and that this had little to do with religion. Neither is formal religion the only or even the main fountain of morality and human decency. The abolition of slavery was brought about by voices of protest that drew their strength from liberal thinking, as well as by changing economic necessity. Formal religion never called for its abolition. The Quakers had a role in the abolition of the institution, but they were themselves persecuted by mainstream Christianity, which was more concerned with the soul of the slave than with his status. While Islam has called for treating slaves humanely and in some cases encouraged freeing them, the abolition of the system was never the idea. It certainly was no sin, either in Christianity or in Islam, to own slaves, and the institution flourished throughout the ascendancy of both religions. Back in Bengal, to two great Bengalis belong the credit for the abolition of the suttee and the introduction of laws that allowed young Hindu widows to marry. Both of them held unorthodox religious views. In fact, both Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Ishvar Chandra Vidyasagar had to fight the bigotry of their co-religionists to bring about the two great reforms in eighteenth century Bengal. In both men their religion paled beside their humanism. It is through the lens of what is broadly called secular humanism that Muslims who are against violence and terror waged in the name religion has to look at the world and the place of Islam in it. Not incidentally, this is also the most effective way one can stand up to bigotry that undoubtedly exists among people of other faiths as well. Secular humanism might mean somewhat different things to different people but its broad features are too well known to need elaboration here. It suffices for me to conclude by illustrating what it is not. In the month of Ramadan last year, I read a brief article in a premier newspaper in New York. It was written by a young Muslim woman, an immigrant brought up in America, and an ardent new lover of Islamic ideals. Dwelling on the beauty of fasting, she pointed out that giving in charity was its most glorious complement. And she went on to narrate how moved she was by the idea, put to her by an Islamic charity foundation, that only a modest donation could feed a Muslim family in Bosnia for a month. The idea that there were, in that same holy month, millions of other hungry human beings around the world, but who happened not to belong to her faith, probably never crossed her mind. That was NOT secular humanism. The article, written some six weeks ago, was originally meant for the print media and was sent to a leading English daily newspaper in Dhaka to which I occasionally contribute. It was not published for reasons not made known to me. Past experience tells me, however, that any writing that even remotely looks ‘critical’ of Islam stands little chance of acceptance in the print media in our society. ] So much for our freedom of thought! It saddens me to publish an article on a particular strain of violence, just as the violence of a war rages. I almost wish I had published this article in quieter times. But the issues raised here remain valid even as a war is being waged and will not go away after it is over. ( Author ) Author Mahfuzur Rahman is a former United Nations official. NEED I SAY MORE???

Weblog Can Infidels be Innocents? August 7, 2005 Three so-called fatwas (even a novice in Islam knows they do not fulfill the definition of a fatwa, which has to be written by a Islamic jurisprudent in response to a specific query) came out in July condemning the 7/7 attacks in London. British Muslim Forum: "Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives." (July 18, 2005) 120 Canadian imams: "Any one who claims to be a Muslim and participates in any way in the taking of innocent life is betraying the very spirit and letter of Islam." (July 21, 2005) Fiqh Council of North America: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." (July 28, 2005) Non-Muslims can be forgiven if they assume the reference to "innocent lives" includes those traveling on the Underground and bus lines in London earlier in the month. But the term "innocent lives" can be much more restricted in application, as a fascinating article in today's Sunday Times (London) makes clear. Titled "Undercover in the academy of hatred," it is based on the covert research by Ali Hussain of the newspaper's Insight team. Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising – it is imperative for Muslims to "instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar," "I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist," "They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down," the bombings were "a good start" and Allah should "bless those involved" He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent. Zachariah, referring to the London passengers: "They're kuffar [infidels]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state." Omar Bakri Mohammed, the sect's leader, who publicly condemned the deaths of "innocents," but at the Selby Centre in Wood Green, north London, on July 22 referred to the 7/7 bombers as the "fantastic four" and explained that his grief for the "innocent" applied only to Muslims. "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar." Comments: (1) Muslim statements condemning the killing of "innocents" cannot be taken at face value but must be probed to find out who exactly are considered innocent and who not. In brief, Can infidels be innocents? (2) For other assessments of the U.S. "fatwa," see the critiques of Abul Kasem, Yehudit Barsky, Steven Emerson, Christopher Orlet, Steven Stalinsky, and the United American Committee, as well as the interesting quotations in an Associated Press report. For an analysis of the Canadian one, see the one by David Ouellette. (3) These documents fit a pattern of dissembling by Islamist organizations; for another example, see "CAIR's Phony Petition." (August 7, 2005) Aug. 30, 2005 update: In a bellicose interview in Lebanon (where he may feel he has nothing to lose in being more candid), Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly came close to confirming the above sentiments. He was questioned by Sanaa al Jack of Ash-Sharq al-Awsat: (Q) you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position? (A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself. Q) Who do you define as innocent? (A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue. | (Q) Does this mean that you support killing those whom you consider guilty and those whom Islam as you understand it describes as not innocent? (A) I support what the Sunni Muslim youths in Lebanon believe in. (Q) What about killing in general? (A) Sister, I do not say that I support killing in general. You said that. (Q) But you alluded to a classification of innocent people. Does this mean that you support jihad in certain areas because of things that are being done against Islam? (A) Do you think that the Palestinian resistance is not right? (Q) I am not giving an opinion, I am asking about your point of view. (A) I am against killing innocent people and I repeat this everywhere. This is my personal position. Sep. 15, 2005 update: A Pakistani veteran of the jihad, Khalid Khawaja, explains his understanding of "innocents" this way to Steward Bell (as quoted in Bell's new book, The Martyr's Oath, p. 81): "We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog_trackback.php/488 Comment on this weblog entry Name

This is just flat-out incorrect. There has never been a time in history in which Jews killed non-Jews because they were non-Jews.