Remembrance Day - I Remember

by Nick Matthews

I remember
they spoke of past glories
and comrades who failed to return.
I remember
the moments of madness
which medals and ribbons would earn.
I remember
the sad wistful stories
that pomp and flags could not hide.
Let's remember
in the November sunshine as
chill winds run up the spine.
That the dignity of the old soldier
should not hide the greater crime.
That until all war is ended
there can never be peace in our time.

www.thefriend.org/articledisplay.asp?articleid=2972

"...Somehere there must be a place
Called Little Peace.
Where men with little humanity
Do not have the power
To make great decisions.
Where little fears do not lessen
The so small span
Of our lives.

Where
For once
We can know peace.
Just a little
To know the taste of it."

We should acknowledge the past - but our hope lies with the fact that there can be change, that there are positive alternatives is evident;
then let us find and take direction.

Naively... both Quiver and Foxy are speaking from a 'Western Historical Framework' as though there are no ideologies out there which simply do....not..... recognize.... the foundation on which your wistful longings come from.

Our values are connected to the Judao Christian values of forgivness...turn the other cheek, forgiveness of enemies.... and this is truly great.. look what it did for the defeated Germany and Japan.... how good is THAT ?

But...there is another force rising on the horizon of history.. a force which sees itself as the ONLY legitimate power on earth.. a force which regards the foundations referred to in my opening paragraphs as the worst sin mankind can make.... "Associating Partners with God" this is the absolute, 100% guaranteed pathway to hell, and must be stamped out, opposed, removed at all costs.

Under that 'force' it would be completely illegal to stand on a street corner with a sign "Jesus is Lord" or.. "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"...in fact.. to do so could/would result in execution (Saudi Arabia)

So.. to speak of "until all war is ended there will never be peace in our time" is actually a statement of the obvious. But the idea of 'no more war' is found in the Quran.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1602.htm

You need to listen VERY carefully to that clip... each word.
Notice how the Al Qaeda leader says
1/ ALL THE WORLD must be forced to submit to Islam.
2/ Not by fighting all the world at once, but..BIT...by BIT.. the closest..then the next etc.

This clip is fascinating.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1600.htm
The moderator says "90% of Muslims want the Islamic rule" the 'modern' Muslim debater says "This is because they have been sucked in by the traditionalists with promises of black eyed virgins" etc... apparently the debate degenerates into back and forth abuse and curses :

QURAN... "no more war"

190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; ....but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

The Key verse is 193 "fight"...."until their prevail justice and FAITH in Allah"

Now..I know what FH will say if he reads this, so I'll say it myself :)

'Oh..but this is meaning fighting against those who.....

-"fight against you" (190)
-"Have turned you out of your houses" (191)

O....k... so far so good.

But here is the problem. Using Mohammad as the 'example'..after all we are told that he is "The Best of all Mankind" we can note the following.

MOhammad did NOT follow the 'do not transgress' by only fighting BACK against enemies. He make a pre-emptive attacks(many).

The Banu al Mustaliq, a sub-tribe of Khuza'a had been subject to a pre-emptive attack by Muhammad In the month of Sha'ban of the 6th year of the Hijra (628 A.D).

He had some intelligence reports that they were planning to attack him. So.... on the strength of these, he attacked them first.

Ok.. smart move you might say ? THE....POINT...is...that using this precedent, the Muslim community would feel completely justified in PRE-EMPTIVELY attacking ANY group which it feel is 'against' it.

Saying that such action is contrary to the Quran is actually not correct, and even if it was, Mohammad showed how Muslims are at liberty to undertand it...by his own actions.

There were many raids against Quraysh caravans.. where the Muslims were the aggressors.

This is not 'mis'representing Islam, it is FAITHFULLY representing the facts of history.

Like the other monotheistic faiths, Islam is a 'big tent,' integrated and practiced in diverse ways. The richness of thought is due to ethnic and national influences, differences among leading scholars, and sectarian splits. As a result, almost every generalization about Islam is partly wrong.

The requirements in some societies, for example, that women cover themselves completely while in public is more a reflection of Arab culture - Arab men also dress with extreme modesty - than a mandate of Islam. The majority of Muslim women do not wear the veil. The Quran does include passages that discriminate against women (for example, language on polygamy, divorce, and inheritance), but in each case the verses are less discriminatory than Arab customs prevailing at the time. Muhammad told his followers, "It is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you."

Queen Noor of Jordan has pointed out, "Few Westerners realize that seventh-century Islam granted women political, legal, and social rights then unheard of in the West, rights, in fact, that women in the
U.S. and elsewhere still struggled for in the twentieth century.

The countries with the largest number of Muslims - Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey - have each elected a female head of government; this is a distinction that neither any Arab state nor
Australia or the U.S. can claim. Muslims agree that the Quran is the literal word of God, but they differ among themselves about how particular verses should be explained and implemented.

I suppose that historically - Christian Europe, scarred from its battles with Muslims through much of the Middle Ages, bequeathed to westerners a suspicion of Islam. Most saw it as an alien and somewhat mystical faith, outside the Judeo-Christian tradition with which they were uncomfortable. Internationally, the sense of unease about Islam was periodically reinforced by Arab oil embargos, the hostile rants of Iranian ayatollahs, and of course incidents of terror.

I believe that one billion three hundred million people can hardly be characterized by the violence of a tiny fraction.

cont'd ...

The Quran is explicit that the taking of a single innocent life is prohibited, even equating it with the killing of all humanity.
This has not stopped some people from portraying Islam as "wicked and evil," or calling Muhammad a "terrorist." Reading selectively, critics cite passages in the Quran that instruct believers to use force against enemies of the faith, instructions that violent extremists - who tend to have the loudest voices - can exploit to justify their actions.

But incendiary language is also present in the Hebrew Bible, what Christians called the Old Testament. The books of Joshua and Judges provide a catalog of holy wars, and Deuteronomy includes a virtual endorsement of genocide in God's name.

In the New Testament, Jesus warns, "Think not that Iam come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." As for the Book of Revelation, it can be interpreted in many ways, but peaceful it is not.

The Quran was compiled over a periood of more than two decades, the Hebrew Bible over centuries. The New Testament was assembled in about 100 years, amid much squabbling about whose testimonies to include and whose to dismiss. Within each book there are inconsistencies and frequent shifts of subject and tone. To construct a dogma out of a few quotations is sophistry. A reader trolling the scriptures for language sanctifying intolerance and war will find it whether the texts are sacred to Christians, Muslims, or Jews. To be understood fairly, each of the holy books must be read and studied both comprehensively and in the context of its place and time. That is why generations of scholars have laboured to highlight core passages, explain contradictions, clear away discrepancies, correct mistranslations, and detect the significance of obscure phrasings.

Dear Foxy
wow.. you kind of did a "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" in 700words there... but in your very broad brushstrokes.. you didn't really nail down some very important points.

You did the very thing you discouraged in others...about selectively misusing texts.

The biggest of your errors was the use of Jesus words wildly out of context.. showing your need to knuckle down and look more closely at your subject matter before making epic like statements.

Contextually.. 'I came not to bring peace but a sword' can only be understood ONE....way (and I don't mean 'my' way) as demanded by the context. Jesus was clearly saying that when one enters the kingdom of God.. OTHERS will use the sword against them.. including one's own family.

On Deuteronomy, (or Joshua/Judges) etc.. there was absolutely ZERO endorsment of 'general' genocide in Gods name, but it DOES include specific, time and people related judgment. There is a heck of a difference. No one could use Deuteronomy to justify 'genocide' in Gods name today unless... like Hitler.. .they simply 'wanted' to.

Finally your grave error in regard to Islam, the Quran stating that 'to take one innocent life' etc... is grossly misleading and shows you have not yet learned a key Islamic theological concept "Innocent".

Here is 'an example' a Muslim understanding of that word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YSOJ6zwDCo

Notice his qualifier "who has no RIGHT to do so" .... what 'right' ? :) *think* why do they add this? to get Mohammad offfff the hoook. Because he KILLED people.

Did Jesus ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Vp_mSKb8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQLpG5b18pk "We start with your cross, we end with your BLOOD" (UK)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4 "As far as we are concerned 'innocent' people are.. MUSLIMS"

Please take the time to actually hear this Muslims speak. Then... re-read what you wrote.
No matter how peaceful the majority are THESE ones are a threat of the word kind.

IMPORTANT. When the communists took Russia, they were few. Less than 10% get it?
Warning of the dangers of small groups of radicals does not tar all Russians or Muslims with the communist/radical brush.

FOXY.. find some muslim cleric, or knowledgable Muslim, and ask:

"What is the worst sin against God?"

Answer will be 'SHIRK'....

I'll leave it to you to sus that out, but be fully informed, that every Christian is 'guilty' of it AND so...are YOU.... so what does that tell you about the potential for future conflict ?

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shirk/index.htm

Now..find Surah 9:29 and see especially verse 30 and see what it says.

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe009.htm

Do you wish to be humiliated, subjugated and subjected to a 'tax' simply because you are not Muslim ?

Do you wish to live under a regime which prohibits you from exercising free speech and conscience about your own faith ?

How would you feel if the LAW said "You can be spoken TO about the 'official' faith, but you canNOT speak to Muslims about your own"
(welcome to Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and many others)

These points are 'Islam101' they are not some wierd fantasy interpretation of selective verses taken out of context. You can see them urself.

How brilliant do you need to be, to work out that if Christians and Jews are 'CURSED' because of their core beliefs, then the 'curse' has nothing to do with 'history' but everything to do with the basic standpoint of the faith. i.e... 9:30 is connected to the concept of...SHIRK.

If you feel I'm wrongly understanding these things, by all means show how and why. But puh-lease.. be specific.. don't just ramble with a heap of broaaaaad generalizations.

Nice analysis Foxy. Unfortunately, however, you seem to have instigated some kind of apoplexy in our resident Q'uranic scholar.

Actually, I reckon Boazy would make a great imam :)

Dear Boaz David,

I hope that I haven't upset you too much. I take what you say very seriously - because I believe that you're sincere and mean well.

It is human instinct to organize into groups. For most of us, this sorting process is largely passive. The groups to which we belong are part of our inheritance and culture - a consequence of where we were born and how we were raised. Nature allows us to choose neither our parents nor our place of birth, limiting from the outset the groups with which we will ever after identify.

True, some of us will weigh competing philosophies and convert from one religion to another out of spiritual enlightenment or intellectual and emotional conviction.

Some will find reason to shift allegiance from one country to another. But, more often we will remain within the same general categories we dropped into at birth or, in my case, the categories where events beyond our control have placed us.

Logically, then, our differences should not matter so much. People in diverse nations and faiths ought to be able to live in harmony.
However, the gap between what ought to be and what actually is has been a recurring source of drama throughout human existence.

I believe that our inherent shortcomings notwithstanding, we can still hope to create a better future.

Dear CJ Morgan,

Thanks for your comments (smile).

Thank You For This Thread.

We will never have those brave soldiers and men and women again.

Be thankful for the years of freedom they gave us because those days are getting closer to being in the past.

There was no question of loyalty to Australia back then.

We will remember them with pride and should hang our heads at the same time for rolling over to other demands.

Such as not saying the lords prayer in all our schools and singing God Save the Queen in line up.

They shall not grow old.

Nor will the future generation if we do not remember what these men did for us and `why.`

Lets We forget