Concerning “suicide bombers” the historical record is clear: suicide bombers do not have their roots in traditional Islam but is something introduced by Wahabbi movement: a modern day reformist movement (Bernard Lewis, below). Secondly, the Wahabbis themselves draw their inspiration form the West and deviate from the teaching and practice of traditional Islam (see Daniel Pipes below). Both statements both uncontroversial among those with some knowledge of Islam

To support the first statement i refer you to Bernard Lewis, who needs no introduction:

Look up page 217 to 218 of Bernard Lewis’s “Islam: the religion and the people” and read the entry under the heading “Suicide” (http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Religion-People-Bernard-Lewis/dp/0132230852#reader_0132230852)

<<At the present time suicide, and more specifically suicide terrorism, has come to be regarded as something characteristically and distinctly Islamic. In the past, for most of the recorded history of Islam and Islamic states and societies, the exact opposite was true. In some civilisations, such as ancient Rome and traditional Japan suicide is not only an acceptable choice; it is even, in certain situations an obligation of honor. In most Christian countries, suicide is classified as both a sin and a crime, but despite this, it was generally regarded as an acceptable choice in certain situations, and suicides are not infrequent in the history of Christendom....

In the Islamic world, for most of Islamic history, suicide is so rare as to be almost unknown. The classical view, as laid down and elaborated in both juristic and theological literature, is that suicide is a major sin, earning eternal damnation>>

Lewis goes on to say that <<it is ONLY under the “extremist view, adopted and expounded in the Salafi and Wahhabi literature that this (suicide bombing) is not only permissible, it is meritorious provided that he takes a number of infidels with him. The more TRADITIONAL view would be that anyone who dies by his own hand, in whatever circumstances, is guilty of the sin of suicide, and thereby earns eternal damnation. For the suicide bombers of today, must rests on a point of interpretation.>>{my emphasis}

Cont...1/2

cont...2/3

I would just add that for these extremists many Muslims would be regarded as infidels and many Muslims have been the target of suicide bombers.

As for the second statement, that Wahabbi’s draw their inspiration from radical movement of the West, i refer you to Daniel Pipes who should also not require any introduction.

Daniel Pipes argues that Islamic fundamentalists draw their inspiration from the West: The Western Mind of Radical Islam (http://www.danielpipes.org/273/the-western-mind-of-radical-islam)

Let me quote:

<<Fat'hi ash-Shiqaqi, a well-educated young Palestinian living in Damascus, recently boasted of his familiarity with European literature. He told an interviewer how he had read and enjoyed Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Sartre, and Eliot. He spoke of his particular passion for Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, a work he read ten times in English translation "and each time wept bitterly." Such acquaintance with world literature and such exquisite sensibility would not be of note except for two points-that Shiqaqi was, until his assassination in Malta a few weeks ago, an Islamist (or what is frequently called a "fundamentalist" Muslim) and that he headed Islamic Jihad, the arch-terrorist organization that has murdered dozens of Israelis over the last two years....

cont..

cont...3/3

Shiqaqi's familiarity with things Western fits a common pattern. The brother of Eyad Ismail, one of the World Trade Center bombers recently extradited from Jordan, said of him, "He loved everything American from cowboy movies to hamburgers." His sister recalled his love of U.S. television and his saying, "I want to live in America forever." The family, she commented, "always considered him a son of America." His mother confirmed that "he loves the United States."
.....
In contrast to this familiarity with Western ways, the Islamists are distant from their own culture. Turabi admitted to a French interviewer, "I know the history of France better than the history of Sudan; I love your culture, your painters, your musicians." Having found Islam on their own as adults, many Islamists are ignorant of their own history and traditions. Some of "the new generation," Martin Kramer notes, "are born-again Muslims, ill-acquainted with Islamic tradition." Tunisia's Minister of Religion Ali Chebbi goes further, saying that they "ignore the fundamental facts of Islam." Like Mawdudi, these autodidacts mix a bit of this and that, as Sayyed Vali Reza Nasr explains:

...

On reflection, this lack of knowledge should not be surprising. Islamists are individuals educated in modern ways who seek solutions to modern problems. The Prophet may inspire them, but they approach him through the filter of the late twentieth century. In the process, they unintentionally substitute Western ways for those of traditional Islam.

Traditional Islam - the immensely rewarding faith of nearly a billion adherents - developed a civilization that for over a millennium provided order to the lives of young and old, rich and poor, sophisticate and ignorant, Moroccan and Malaysian. Alienated from this tradition, Islamists seem willing to abandon it in a chimerical effort to return to the pure and simple ways of Muhammad. >>

Both Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes are no apologists for Islam

You can protest as much as you like, Boaz, but we both know the reality of what you write, and why you write it, don't we.

>>Sorry Pero...I did not say the Burqa is the equivalent of a Bomber... The woman wearing the Burqa is doing so out of her perception of obedience to Allah and Sharia law. (mindset)<<

OK, let's examine that for a moment, in the context of my earlier question to you, which was:

"why has Syria banned the burqa in schools? Why is it not mandatory wear in Pakistan? In Indonesia?"

These are Muslim countries. If wearing the burqa is mandatory, due to "obedience to Allah and Sharia law", as opposed to an option, why do they not insist on it? Why does Syria, of all countries, decide that it is inappropriate wear for schools?

If, as you say...

>>the only context for a Burqa is "strict adherence to Islamic law"<<

...we clearly can see that a great deal of Islam does not demand this "strict adherence".

Which you should bear in mind sometime, when you insist that this "strict adherence" is the very danger that you perceive, and fear, from Muslims. As your endless repetition of selected verses from the Qur'an informs us.

You won't allow yourself to understand this, of course. But it is necessary for me to remind you every so often.

I have a question...

If I can't enter a bank wearing a motor-cycle helmet, as it covers my face, and in the past, thieves have used them in order to rob banks, then in the burqa style that has the face covered as well, couldn't a bank refuse entry on the same basis?

Hi Grateful... you can woffle all you like about 'origins' and Wahabbis...but they probably didn't even have 'bombs' in those days.

However...they did have swords and catapults.

You waste everyone's time when you argue from sources POST Hadith.

It's like you are just coming up with an idea you like..then 'projecting' it back onto the foundation scriptures as if they didn't matter, or mean what they say.

@ Mindless...yes they could. and should.

Dear Pericles....you are arguing from modern history and anecdotally rather than from foundation principles.

I'm simply making the point that from my perspective the Burga is unacceptable in Australia because of the issues such as raised by Mindless.

I also point out that the Burqa is symbolic of something much deeper and that is.. if only in the mind of the person wearing it.."obedience to Allah" according to the Sharia.

It is that mindset which ALSO takes such things as I illustrated far more seriously than either you, I, or the vast majority of 'cultural' Muslims. Nevertheless..it is important to understand the mindset itself, as we have had significant attempts in the 'name' of that obedience to kill and maime 100s if not 1000s of Australians.

You can be sure of one thing.. those terrorist/Islamist attempts were nothing to do with obeying the flying spagetti monster we hear so much about but they were connected to "Allah" and "Islam"

Well thanks for the reminder.. you have your position and I have mine...not much point in trying to kick each other to death over it eh? I wasn't trying to persuade 'you' of the matter.. but for those who's minds are open.

@GRATEFUL. I think you need a refresher on "Islam101" :)

1/ Quran...
2/ Hadith
3/ Sunnah (includes the above 2 and the history/biographies)
4/ Schools of Jurisprudence..Hanafi, Hanbali,Maliki and Shaafi.

Get your info from the right place and it'll save you lots of typing.