Libertarian Muslim

Drug trade? I doubt it. Arms? Probably.. Human trafficking? I also doubt it unless you're talking about the multitudes of Russian prostitutes I came across. Whatever the US does behind the scenes is another story, lending support covertly to the opposition that the US finds most acceptable ideologically is always a give in. I just don't want to see another Libya.. There is no way in hell the Syrians would accept that at all.

And if you had the power to do so? Would you launch a war against Islam and Muslims and try and rid the world of us?

So why don't you just declare war on Islam and all Muslims and have a war against us then..

Because more and more people are protesting, if the US gets involved it will make the people support Assad because they don't want foreign intervention.. Let them continue on this course and it'll work out well.

There are obviously very big issues. Though I think that remnants of the security forces of Mubarak are responsible for the majority of the atrocities.

America would be wise to stay out of Syria.

Oh please.. What a load of BS. That is outrageously stupid. It is okay to rape your maids? BS.. Rape is a crime where the rapist is punished, the victim is supposed to be treated like a victim and not blamed for the crime against them.. What she's describing is not Islam, rather it's the cultural tendencies of the region that not only occur within the Muslim community, but also occur within the Christian community too and other communities in the region.. Infidel, if you really believe this rubbish then I really feel sorry for anyone associated with you. And you claim that 'America ain't over yet'? It's too late.. It was over for America when Americans had defecated on their Founding Fathers by not being vigilant in protecting the values that their nation was founded on and sold the soul of their nation and gave into the military industrial complex and the international bankers who provided Americans with a cocoon of ignorance, stupidity and laziness to wrap themselves in whilst both committed unspeakable crimes in their name. America could never be defeated except by the negligence of its own people.. This has definitely occurred.. So what are you going to do America? Are you going to take it back? Can you even be successful at it if you try? I sure hope so otherwise there are going to be several hundred million Americans that wake up one day soon and realize that they've lost it all and have been swindled by these vermin that will just move onto their next victim without remorse like a rapist..

Yes exactly, and what is worse is that by the actions that the US has taken over the last 50 years in supporting dictatorships and monarchies, the US sold out all of its values.. All of the things that made the US great and have a moral high ground were there and have now been lost.. The murder of Osama bin Laden was the nail in the US Government's coffin. What happened America?

I'm sure that's how Al-Qaeda felt in launching the 9/11 attacks.. They wanted to attack the US Economy and Military in a move so daring but they didn't have missiles or jet fighters and therefore decided to use passenger jets to do it, they knew innocent people would be killed but thought that if they were lucky.. Their attacks would cause the Americans to be so angry by it, that instead of just targeting Al Qaeda through targeted attacks on a small scale that they'd attack Afghanistan as a whole and invade the country.. That would then make it easier for Al Qaeda to attack US Soldiers like they'd wanted to do all along. It would also draw the US Empire into a battle which would last so long that it would drain the US economy and morale and cause the US to waste a lot in Afghanistan, just like the Soviet Union did.. It may even cause the US Empire to collapse, at the very least the end result would be that Americans lose their blood lust for war and stop trying to dominate and control all of the countries in the region, perhaps it would even stop the US government from supporting dictatorships in the region. Sure there were lives lost of innocent civilians in the US but to Al Qaeda, they were just collateral damage in a war that they felt justified in fighting.. You seem rather similar..

And how do you feel about the many innocent civilian corpses that are due to the algorithms that you've created? Proud of that too?

Before you destroy your enemy you should actually know who they are first. It appears you're still struggling with that part.

Geert Wilders like the Islamists use the democratic values like freedom of speech as a means to get into power, and then try and then would like to take that right away from others. Is Geert Wilders inciting hatred? Yes, for anyone to deny is just silly.. Should he be sent to prison for it or be barred from political office.. No.. To do so would undermine the idea that logic will overrule craziness and that the checks and balances of power, such as the judiciary would prevent crazy people like him in power to carry out their crazy ideas even if they are elected. Regarding the idea that you can strike at the leadership of those crazy groups such as Al Qaeda and somehow diffuse them, it is not correct. They consider themselves true believers who are fighting God's war, they don't do it for Osama bin Laden, they do it for God.. They are amongst a civilian population that is largely unaware of their actions and for the most part are against what their ideology states, for some of those civilians they are on the fence and neither support openly nor condemn the actions of those extremists because they haven't made their mind up.. By massacring the civilians you'll only make all of the people hate you and they'll either start fighting you because you killed their families, friends and coreligionists or they'll be convinced that the ideas of the extremists are correct and you'll make them extreme too.. It's counter productive.. The only way to defeat them is not through bombs, it's a war of ideologies and the people in between are the target.. You need to show how your ideals are better and how the Islamist's ideas are both Islamically and logically incorrect and full of hate.. You need to be a good example and you can't do so by bombing everyone.. If you show the people that your ideas are better then many of the Islamists will see it too and will defect, there will always be a hardcore minority that still remains and fights because they can't be convinced of anything.. But once you have the majority on your side they'll fight against those hardcore extremists.. That's how you win this war, anything else will lose it.. And for those that think that a war on Islam will be successful and you can somehow kill all Muslims or make us change our belief.. It's silly.. You couldn't be bombed out of your sincerest beliefs so to expect to be able to do the same to us is just illogical, know that you can't bomb an idea and you'll end up just creating more extreme people who will fight against you, it will lead to your own destruction because you'll never be able to afford it, it'll destroy the ideals that you built your nations on and Muslims will have more than a billion people that will fight to the death rather than give up their religion.. You can't beat that no matter how hard you try and it would only encourage people to come to Islam in the West..

Hi Robert, that is an excuse that some extremists also use.. Nevertheless it's one of faulted logic.. We must remember that the Qur'an acknowledged that the Jews and Christians held those beliefs yet still stated the Christians and Jews etc would have nothing to grieve.. I will also state this, the verse I quoted before is from one of the last chapters of the Qur'an revealed to man and was not abrogated.

I'm not sure where you got this idea.. But Islam doesn't teach that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah at all.. Islam teaches us that we're supposed to have a loyalty to God and that the measure of our loyalties and the sides we choose on particular issues should be justice and not our connection to our family, our tribe nor fellow Muslims if those Muslims are in the wrong.. Justice is the measure of our loyalties.. Not whether someone is Muslim or not..

Depends who you ask I guess? I don't think there is one, I do know however that we have an affinity for the People of the Book as it's an honored title. The verse states: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not (Qur'an 5:82) First note how it states that Jews and Idolators are two different groups, hence the earlier made assertion that they were idolators was incorrect. Nevertheless, let us address the verse as a whole. This statement was not untrue for its time, the Pagan Arabs and the Jews of the region were in fact the most hostile people towards Islam there. Islam upset the social order of both groups.. The Pagans of Quraish and the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) benefited greatly off of the unjust practices of the region. Islam came and changed the social order which benefited them so they disliked Islam. The Jews of Yathrib were amazing craftsmen and would make and sell the weapons and armor to be used in the wars between the Pagan tribes of Yathrib, they'd then give loans with huge interest rates to the Pagans of the Yathrib to be able to purchase those weapons. Islam upset that social order because the Pagan tribes of Yathrib became Muslim and there was no more wars between them. That is not to say that the Jews in general are the most hateful of Islam or that all Jews are damned to Hellfire. Nothing could be further from the truth, the Qur'an even states in the same chapter: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (Qur'an 5:69) Hmmm.. This comes from a root word which can either mean protector or friend. The context is not in friendship, as the verse previously mentioned the Christians of that time as being nearest in affection to the Muslims.. That definitely describes friendship. What this is referring to is specifically protection.. Muslims should not allow their security or safety to be in the hands of non Muslims and rely solely on them for protection. It encourages Muslims to protect themselves as the Muslims were always persecuted by the Pagans after other Pagans that had some treaty with the Muslims that included the protection of those Muslims had either broken the treaty or the treaty became invalid due to the passing of the tribal leader that took them under his protection.. I wouldn't expect Jews to only rely on the protection of non Jews because history shows that this is not a sufficient way to protect ones' self. Therefore I don't think that Muslims, nor any group should have to rely on different groups to protect them. Perhaps not, but Jews have committed many other horrendous crimes with their religion as a motive but that doesn't mean we should judge all Jews based on that.. Just as it's silly to judge all Muslims of it. All Idolators, for all time. It is the case that Pagans used the Kaaba for worship when polytheism was introduced into the Arabian Peninsula, but this was long after the Kaaba was built and was an abomination. No, we won't allow idol worship back into the Kaaba I didn't suggest that there's no atheists in the Middle East. I said that Arabs would find the idea as confusing. I'm sorry but I don't take the time of ponder on your atheism.. It's your own business and not mine. I wish you the best. I don't see the conflicts that you're referring to. I will keep Western citizenship of course, I was born in the West and for all purposes am a Westerner. I also don't proclaim to know everything or better than anyone the perfect true Islam, I'm still learning. I can read Arabic and can speak basic Arabic. In terms of religious instruction.. Not a formal education no.. But now 10 years of intense study and bouncing my ideas off of and asking questions of the scholars I had around me and overseas. Perhaps you can show me where I've said that? I don't think that people accepting Islam was as a result of conquest and that they felt obligated to do so.. When I think of people accepting religion because of conquest I do think about the conquistadors going into Peru and other places in the name of Christ and forcibly converting people. I don't believe that Islam spread like that. Which hadiths where you referring to?

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts. Have you ever been to the Middle East as a civilian? If so, where? Also, it's not ignorance or being childish at all.. From my experience and what I've seen they just don't seem to understand why people wouldn't believe in God. I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to visit. I have never read anything in the Qur'an nor in any authentic hadiths that would indicate that non Muslims can't visit Mecca.. Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam.. They even used to ban non Wahhabis from visiting Mecca.

Agreed, I believe that is the case. In terms of building Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues, I don't see it as too much of an issue at all. The Kaaba was made as a destination for religious pilgrimage for all monotheistic religions as it was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them. In terms of Atheist centers? I'm not sure you'd find it popular there at all.. I have never met an atheist in the Middle East, from the Gulf to Syria or Lebanon I didn't find one at all. I found a few people who were against the religious teachings of their parents both from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, some who didn't know what the right religion was yet still believed in God.. Some who left their religion such as Islam or Christianity because they disagreed with not the religion itself, but how the cultural practices introduced certain things into it which were oppressive to them. I'm sure you could give it a go if you wanted, but it would leave the Arabs scratching their heads.. Their response would probably be something like "You mean you want to build a building here, devoted to having the belief that there is nothing to believe in? Why not leave it vacant then?"

Perhaps actually read the things that you've quoted and see whether this 'we' would more readily apply to Muslims or to the US? If it's still too difficult to figure out then perhaps just stop replying.

Oh my God, you're right Infidel! Thank you for showing me the light! We kill their civilians and they kill ours.. Their civilians' lives surely can't be worth as much as our civilians' lives right? Savages.. We destabilize governments there and install and support tyrants that torture and murder the people there and they dare call us hypocrites.. Barbarians! We put sanctions on their countries to hurt the monsters we create and instead kill 1.5million of their citizenry while the monster lives in luxury and they have the audacity to call us the real terrorists.. Freedom hating liars! We bomb,invade and occupy their nations and they have the gall to resist us by attacking our soldiers.. Terrorists!!! Yeah you're right.. They're much worse than we are, far beneath us..

Since he doesn't accept Salafism, no. --Brant I have not said that all salafists or even all wahhabis or even a majority or both groups support terrorism, that isn't the case at all.

I bet you have. I appreciate that you are able to see it. Agreed! I suppose I was talking about the lesser of those evils. Hmmm.. Iran has never given Hezbollah nor any of the other organizations it supports chemical weapons to use against US or Israeli forces as we gave Iran's enemies to use against them. I agree 100%. But having said that, let's not forget that we spend millions of dollars every year supporting terrorists to attack the Iranian government, and I'm not talking about uprisings of the people, I'm talking about us using people aligned with Al Qaeda to commit attacks in Iran against civilian government institutions. You know the thing is Michael, we can help the Iranians achieve freedom.. Most Iranians love the US and love the ideas of liberty. However ever time we fund terrorists to attack their country, or threaten to bomb their country ourselves we put them in a position where they would rather choose a hardline government that protects their nation, rather than a reformist government that is weak on self defense. They lost millions of people in the war against Saddam Hussein when he attacked their country and was supported and encouraged to do so by us. They are, like us, a proud people.. Change can only come at their hands.. The beauty of Libertarianism is that we can show them the greatness of our system through the example we set.. It's an idea that when there is a good example of it being applied it spreads like wild fire.. I have friends in Bahrain, friends in Egypt, friends in Tunisia.. They all want freedom now.. They always knew something was wrong but couldn't put their finger on it.. If we had done what we were supposed to do and provided a good example of liberty, they'd know exactly what they wanted to transition to.. But we didn't. So there will be many teething problems for them.. Right now even in Tunisia they're in the middle of what they're calling the second revolution against the government that is in power after bin Ali's departure.. I long for the day Michael when we in the West realize that the people in the Middle East are just like us, they have hopes and dreams like us, they care about and love their children and want the best for them and they want to live their lives free of any interruption from any government or power. As soon as we see their humanity correctly we'll be able to see that these wars are useless and only hurt the innocent and lay waste to soldiers who shouldn't be put in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. Our actions over the last 50 years, and in particular the last 10 have been anti freedom, and not pro freedom like they should be.

Bin Laden son questions killing Fourth eldest son says family wants "conclusive evidence" to prove events surrounding al-Qaeda leader's death. Last Modified: 11 May 2011 06:15 A statement purporting to come from a son of Osama bin Laden has questioned the legitimacy of the al-Qaeda leader's killing. The statement, published by the New York Times and attributed to Omar bin Laden, bin Laden's fourth eldest son, said the al-Qaeda chief's children reserved the right to take legal action in the United States and internationally to determine the true fate of their vanished father. "We are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead," the statement read, adding that the family was seeking "conclusive evidence" confirming bin Laden's death. Obama announced bin Laden was killed in a raid by US forces on a compound in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad. His body was quickly buried at sea, according to the US. Obama has vetoed the release of photos of bin Laden's body. The statement from the family continued, saying that if bin Laden was indeed dead, "then we are just in questioning as per media reports... why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world". "If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law, has been sacrificed." The statement said bin Laden's "sudden and unwitnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man". Photo evidence Questions have multiplied since the White House said the al-Qaeda leader was unarmed when US helicopter-borne commandos raided the villa where he was hiding. Some in the US senate have said that they too need to see photographic proof to confirm that bin Laden was truly dead. US senators serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee will be able to see post-mortem photos of bin Laden by making a special appointment with the CIA, according to reports. Three Republican senators, including Saxby Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, initially claimed to have seen the photos last week, before acknowledging they were likely duped by photoshopped fakes. The statement from bin Laden's family made sure to distance his son from the al-Qaeda leader's ideology, saying: "In making this statement, we want to remind the world that Omar Ossam Binladin [sic], the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances". The statement added that it was "unworthy" of US special forces to shoot unarmed female members of the Bin Laden family. It also urged the government of Pakistan "to release and hand over all minors of the family and [ensure] all the family members are reunited at one place and are repatriated to their country of origin". It ended by calling for a response from the US within 30 days. Failure to answer the family's questions would result in their seeking redress with bodies such as the UN or the International Criminal Court, it said. Source

Tony, the reason for that is because what you were saying was mostly your opinion of me, of which I could care less about. I'm not here to seek your nor anyone elses' approval. I state my opinions and that is it. I enjoy our dialogue on this website and I can say that I've found it greatly beneficial. But please don't mistake that to mean I care about what your opinion of me is. I simply don't.. You are most likely aware of the type of attitudes I came across on the SOLO website with Lindsay Perigo and his fanatical minions, they have said far worse about me yet I still didn't respond in turn. I did respond to your comment about veiled threats because you made an assertion about me that is incorrect and I felt that it would be prudent to challenge it. Well I suppose our own history in the West, and especially the US is a perfect example of double standards. We put military bases close to countries that see it as a threat to them but we'd never accept others doing that to us. We kill the citizens of other countries without a legal right to do so but wouldn't accept other nations doing that in our country. We don't hand over terrorist suspects that are accused of crimes such as blowing up passenger aircraft even when they provide evidence showing that there is probable cause for their arrest and extradition to face a trial in other countries yet we demand other countries hand over suspects of terrorism without even providing those nations with evidence of their guilt. We support dictators and tyrants who oppress their people with rape, torture and murder yet try to claim that we stand up against tyranny in countries that we don't like whilst conveniently leaving our friends alone. All of these are indeed double standards which we are guilty of. Yet we expect no one to retaliate when we are the initiators of force, of which we are the greater initiator of force and injustice in those regions. Really? So are you saying that our lives are more important than theirs? We've been responsible many more dead innocent people in their countries than they have been of innocent people in ours.. So who is to dictate the line here? I'll give you some advice a wise old elder in my community gave me when I got married. Perhaps if you apply it in your every day life you'll be more successful. We shouldn't only apply it to marriage but also apply it to all of our interactions with other people. He told me, "If your wife is ever upset with you or not fulfilling one of your rights over her, then before you start demanding your rights of her, perhaps you should first sit back and question yourself whether you have fulfilled all of her rights over you in the first place, more often than not you will find that someone's behavior towards you is a reaction to your own behavior towards them and if you go through life first trying to make sure that you've given your wife all of her rights first, you will have a harmonious marriage". In any form of Conflict Resolution it's important for us to look at the reasons the conflict is there, to be so stupid so as to believe the lines that we are being attacked because the terrorists hate our freedoms is ridiculous, that is not the reason it is occurring.. We do need to examine our foreign policy and make the appropriate changes to ensure that we're not making the mistake of infringing on the rights of innocent people. Especially when we claim to be the bastions of freedom and democracy. That is not to say that we deserve any type of attack on innocent people here, there is never a legitimate excuse of killing unarmed people. Rather it's to say that we also need to make sure we're doing the right thing. I've been there and done that and continue to do so, I don't find great use doing it too much here because my audience here aren't Muslims. I can assure you that I do so within the Muslim community. As far as I'm aware Iran post 1979 has never been the aggressor in a conventional war with another nation, in addition to that even when Iran has been attacked with chemical weapons that the West has provided its attackers with Iran still did not respond by using those same weapons. Therefore I don't see any reason why Iran can't have nuclear weapons as a deterrent if Israel is allowed to have them. To be honest I'd prefer that no one have them at all and the Middle East, if not the world be Nuclear Weapon Free but if that isn't going to happen and nations that pose an immediate threat to Iran are allowed to have them, Iran should be able to also. Also, you talk about my pragmatism about the tactical efficiency of suicide bombers in Israel (and anywhere else). I'm sorry if you find my looking at the tactical side of things as being improper, but I always look at the efficiency and usefulness of tactics being used and it has shown me that in this case, not only is suicide bombing forbidden in Islam, but it's also a tactic that is counter productive. I'd rather put as many arguments against something I disagree with rather than just one. It tends to convince people more. A veiled threat, which you've accused me of making is where I would threaten you without actually typing or speaking the words directly but through implying it so you understand it very clearly to be that case. If you believe I have then please do show evidence of this and I'm sure the moderators will take immediate action against me, if you can't then I'd like you to retract your accusation against me. I'm not playing this silly game with you, the majority of Muslims in the world are great people, I wonder how many Muslims you know Robert? I also wonder how many countries in the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia have you visited? Or How many Muslims from those places do you know? I believe that through education and through open and respectful dialogue and not bombs, the great majority will come to a similar understanding. A perfect example of that is what's happening in the Middle East now.. People are rising up against tyranny. Hardly any, I think you'll find the majority of Muslims find this idea repulsive. I don't support either. Actually if I had to choose any I'd choose an American Empire because the other three options are far less trustworthy and are capable of far worse than what the US is. . I don't believe you've ever asked. The empire, like any, was certainly expanded by conquest, but I don't believe that the religion spread due to this conquest. The ends never justifies the means, if we infringe on the rights of people to achieve our goals then we've overstepped our authority and begun transgressing in a way which we have no right to. God dislikes transgressors. So instead of taking the high moral road and showing how our ideas are better than theirs, let's lower ourselves down to their level and just pray this wins the war.. You're foolish to think this will work. The war on terrorism will never be won with bombs nor guns. It's sad that even 10 years on, people don't realize that.. This is why we will fail in Afghanistan. I also am not sure where you are getting an idea that I have stated that I think that people are rejecting tyrant America and accepting tyrant Islam as you call it. I don't believe that I've said any such thing. Or instead of spending 3 trillion dollars and wasted countless soldiers and civilians lives when we could have supplied the Taliban with the evidence they required to be able to extradite or even try Osama bin Laden for 9/11 as they had requested so many times before we attacked. But Nooooo! We're America and we have the guns and we want blood that we didn't need to follow the simple protocol that any nation should be following to get justice.. Instead we wanted blood and revenge, we wanted to drop some bombs and kill some terrorist Hajjis! Because we are America! F*ck Yeah!!!! Oh no, you're collaborating with the terrorists, that must make you a terrorist too!

Who made such veiled threats?