Coach,
You know little about Islam. Muslims also believe in Jesus and his teachings. The difference between us is not his teachings but who he is.

Danielle (1/2)

1. “Certain ancient tribal…like honour killings and female circumcision”
Female circumcision is African and was part of the Abyssinian (Ethiopian-Christian) culture for centuries before Islam. None of the females in my family for the last 3 generations (including my daughters) were circumcised. I accept that it’s widely practiced in the out-of-city and in less educated societies. I also know first hand from a number of Egyptian and African doctors that it is slowly dying out. As for honour killing, its also a Bedouin Mediterranean culture and exists till today among Christians in the south of Egypt and in Sudan. One of the highest honour killing rates is Italy, Its nicknamed for “Italian Divorce”.

2. “there are Islamic "denominations" that promote peace and gentleness, but they are repressed by the majority”
The opposite is correct: I lived and grew up in Muslim countries till the age of 29. Most Muslims go about their life and faith in a peaceful and gentle manner. The radicals are usually, a bunch of angry clerics and frustrated teens in economical conditions where people can’t find a job; afford a marriage or even food. The issue is how to control the radicals? Its people who don’t believe in moderate Islam and we are on their target list as well (90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims). It’s like asking Catholics in my street to control the IRA.

To-be-continued...

Danielle (2/2)

3. “do you not believe that the Islamic penal code in Arab countries, Iran, …Such practices are inhumane and denigrate human life”

With the exception of Iran and Saudi, most Muslim countries have a secular legal system since the end of colonialism days. Since then, there was a debate over how much ‘alignment’ secular laws should have with Sharia laws. There are two views:

a)The conservative view: believe in literal application of the Sharia laws. Its difficult to implement/convict (crime convictions mandates 4 eye-witnesses of character to testify). You will also have to accept that in this form, it’s preventive enough that people go to bed with their car keys in the ignition.

b)The moderate view: believe in the context/purpose and re-interpret for today. This view is popular with most mainstream Islamic thinkers, scholars and influencers.

The moderates view picked up few ‘contexts’ such as:
*Prevention not correction: penalty has to be harsh enough to be preventive. An example you can’t give 1 year sentence for thief who stole million dollars.
*Enphasis on intent.
*Punishment and crime have to be of the same nature: ie graffiti offender should be sentenced to cleaning graffiti, etc..
*Victim’s consideration as a part of the legal process: As you may know, the current Sharia law allows the victim (or their family) to interfere to drop the sentence for a compensation sum of money (i.e. in cases like man slaughter) or just forgive the offender as a charitable act.
Either view does not cater for socially damaging industries like liquor, tobacco, etc.

4. “I do not wish to cross swords with you regarding Arab history, unless of course, you wish too”
You will notice throughout my posts I only ‘draw’ on a mis-representation (mostly intentional by few posters) and I just correct it and move on. I am familiar with the ME history, theology, philosophy and politics so you won’t find me dogmatic and I accept any rational debates without 'swords' :-)

Peace,

“The radicals are usually, a bunch of angry clerics and frustrated teens in economical conditions where people can’t find a job; afford a marriage or even food .... The issue is how to control the radicals? Its people who don’t believe in moderate Islam and we are on their target list as well (90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims). It’s like asking Catholics in my street to control the IRA.”

Fellow-Human,

I agree with you 100% ...! We have arrived at a meeting point! I thought, and hoped, I had made my feelings clear. I am not in any way against Islam, a major religion in the world, but against the radicalization of it (as I am of any religion). I apologise deeply if I haven’t made this clear enough.

Iranian dissidents, apart from wanting the UN to expel Iran until human rights are introduced into their country, also state that a lot of the problem is poverty.

The West should be supporting you and others. From your perspective as a Muslim, do you know how this can be best achieved.

As you pointed the IRA /Protestant persecution occurred, and recently.

I was interested in your comments about tribal mores, etc. absorbed into religion. I was aware that Italy used to have honour killings, but thought that the practice had died out.

Interestingly in the Gothic cathedrals and churches there are bosses (faces) on the ceilings. These are pagan and represent the “Green Man”; also along the outside roof-line are gargoyles, some of which are downright obscene. These too are pagan. The church permitted these in order that their new communties did not feel completely alienated from the religion. Chartres cathedral was deliberately built on the site of a Roman temple. The small female ebony figure found there was immediately adopted and revered by the Catholic church as the “black madonna”

I have just received your latest comment. and find it very interesting. We are unaware of much of this. Perhaps we need more “enlightenment” about Muslim law as it is enacted today.

Peace

MLK

I am familiar with the writings Robert Fisk, John Pilger and Naom Chomsky. I have problems with them on a number of levels. My first degree was in history, classical studies (including languages and philosophy) and archaeology. These subjects required rigorous research, especially comparing secondary against primary sources. The latter being the most important. Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilization”, a massive work, has 10 pages of references, but only one-and-a-half pages of primary sources. Additionally, where he describes the preparation for, and stoning of two women. He does not ask the “difficult” questions. This is covered in a half-page; his “guide” (presumably) states that he is uncertain whether he approves of stoning or not. That’s all.

My second degree was in writing and communication; among the subjects were journalism and linguistics. From the position of new standards of journalism, neither Fisk nor Pilger would make the grade.

In October 2006 Fisk reported on the front page of the UK's Independent that Israel had used uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon.

A panel of experts from the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Engineering Regiment of the Lebanese Army; the head of the National Council for Scientific Research George Tohmeh; the Arab Atomic Agency; the UN Environmental Program ; the Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission , the IAEA, including the World Health Organization confirmed that no depleted-uranium-ammunitions had been used during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon.

Didier Louvat, IAEA head of radioactive waste issues reported these findings to a conference hosted by the National Council for Scientific Research in Bir Hassan.

This is an extremely serious error for Fisk to make. To date no retraction has been made. To make such a statement without supporting evidence immediately discredits Fisk as a journalist, in fact, everything he writes.

Pilger is extremely short on specific facts. Undoubtedly, like Fisk, he uses a limited and narrow pool of informants.

As for Chomsky, his linguistics, and indeed political writings, increasingly are coming under attack. There are grave problems with his methodology.

See: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm

I do not identify any of these men with political correctness.

Danielle
It is unclear to me why you would think one, albeit significant, mistake would fully discredit somebody of Fisk's stature. Your criticism seems extravagant to me. Whilst having no time for the ideologically driven and loathsome Pilger and not much for the pedantic, puritanical Chomsky, I think that Fisk's work is generally fair and accurate. You must allow that we all make the odd mistake?
Dan

FH.. my 'BoazBashing' meter was flicking just now...when I read 'misrepresentations of Islamic history by some posters'... *biff* :)
You didn't mean ME did you ? Now that's not nice..I suggest that you simply don't like the truth when told it.

I agree with Danielle.. PRIMARY sources are the most important.

Unfortunately for "Islam" those primary sources reveal a sad and evil state of affairs which is quite unpalatable to you. Still, we will sort you out in time :)

Can't wait to do a response to Dr Zakir Naik's "Did Jesus every claim to be God" on youtube... that bloke has an incREDible memory.. chapter and verses flow out of him like water from a tap,but.. unfortunately for him.. he is plain wrong.
I'm waiting for my 'Compro Video card' and a digital camera.