<OT> -- WAY OT Re: So it goes . . .

[Roger Oberholtzer]

On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 20:18, Michael Hipp wrote:
> Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote:
> > David,
> > 
> > I appreciate the (way off topic) essay on fighting terrorism.
> > 
> > 
> >>I know many think that singling out Muslims is not kosher, 
> >>but keep this
> >>in mind:
> >>by Rick Mathes 
> >>
> >>>Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
> >>>maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
> >>
> >>session
> >>
> >>>there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman
> >>
> >>Catholic,...
> > 
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > Please go to the Snopes site and read on the Islamic legend.  It has some
> > basis, but is not factual.
> > 
> > http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp
> 
> Note that that snopes article can only directly say that the event  in 
> question was wrong, its feeble attempt to refute the notion of "jihad" 
> just doesn't hold water.
> 
> There are a few facts that can't be argued with:
> - Muslims do routinely kill non-Muslims for no particular reason.
> - Muslims routinely commit suicide in the process.
> - These events take place all over the world in essentially all of the 
> various factions of the religion.
> - Those who purport to speak for Islam routinely call for the killing of 
> non-believers.
> - No Muslim publicly disagrees with these "spokesmen" or offers a 
> different message.
> - No Muslim seems to be bothered that these "spokesmen" claim to 
> represent all of Islam.
> - When Muslims kill non-believers, no other Muslims condemn the act.
> - When Muslims kill non-believers, Muslims all over the world routinely 
> cheer, take to the streets in celebration, and go on global television 
> to bless the event.
> - The stewards of various Mosques all over the world routinely raise 
> funds, provide services to, and even give direct assistance to Muslims 
> whose stated purpose is the killing of non-believers.
> 
> (Did I miss anything?)
> 
> George Rodham-Bush may think Islam is a religion of peace. But no other 
> thinking person does.
> 
> Until these alleged billions of peaceful, tolerant Muslims start doing 
> something about their very violent and hateful brethren, then I see no 
> realistic option but to assume they at least tacitly support it. To-date 
> they have, in the entirety, been utterly silent.

A truly deafening silence. Probably because your run-of-the-mill Moslem
is taught not to discuss the Koran because they are not educated to do
so. And if they get it wrong, they will be committing a great sin.
Either because they misquote Mohammad, or because they may lead some
other believer astray by a mistake.

Only the Iman is considered educated to the extent that he can discuss
the Koran without making a mistake. I was in Riyadh one time watching a
TV show from Mecca. The show was one in which people could write in and
have their questions on Islam answered. I will never forget the answer
to one question: A Saudi wrote in to ask why people circled the home of
Mohammad in Mecca some set number of times. He was asking because he
wanted to explain this to his non-Moslem friends. Well, the Iman blew
his top. Told the guy that he had no right to discuss the Koran as he
was not educated to do so. In fact, the whole lengthly answer was only
this complaint, He never did answer the actual question. For a similar
reason, it is not allowed to bring a Koran into the country, The reason
is that there may be a mistake in it, and this could lead some follower
to do the wrong thing.

The other thing that Islam lacks (and probably why it spreads as it
does) is that there is no central worldwide leadership. No single group
is charged with defining Islamic beliefs, Every Iman is effectively the
boss in his area.

I truly believe that most Moslems are peaceful and dislike terrorism.
The TV in the U.S., with its various agendas, do not show how everyone
is acting. There was a BBC World special a week or so ago in which they
tried to address this. They asked things like "Are you better off now
than a year ago?" (only half felt so), and "Do you expect to be better
off in a year from now?" (much more than half felt so - faith in the
future still strong). Many Iraqis made an interesting point: they felt
that many were complaining now because they could, For so long they
could say nothing in public. Now they feel it is almost their duty to
exercise this recent freedom. They are also complaining so that whatever
gets set up will consider their views. Squeaky wheel and all. For most
it did not seem lost on them that the fact that they could complain is
in itself something. The BBC went on to tell that there are some hundred
newspapers in Iraq now, all with different vies of things - a healthy
sign. A year ago there were a handful. All with similar things to say.

Has this sort of thing been reported in the US press? I cannot say as I
no longer live there. But what I do see seems to emphasize the problems
to the point one would think that was all there was. Services like the
BBC are not commercial and definitely not an arm of the government.Maybe
that is why they present a wider picture.