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.