Libertarian Muslim

Thank you all, LM Appreciates your efforts.

I suppose that depends on what your understanding of a dhimmi is Robert.

Syria's Mufti: Islam commands us to protect Judaism Sheikh Hassoun tells U.S. group: If Mohammed told me Jews or Christians were heretic, I would say he was a heretic. By Haaretz Service Tags: Islam Jewish World Syria Israel news Syria's foremost Muslim leader declared on Tuesday that Islam commands its followers to protect Judaism, according to Army Radio. "If the Prophet Mohammed had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Mohammed himself a heretic," Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria, was quoted as telling a delegation of American academics visiting Damascus. Hassoun, the leader of Syria's majority Sunni Muslim community, also told the delegates that Islam was a religion of peace, adding: "If Mohammed had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a prophet." Religious wars were the result of politics infiltrating systems of faith, he said, asking: "Was Moses of Middle Eastern or European descent? Was Jesus a Protestant or a Catholic? Was Mohammed Shi'ite or Sunni?" According to the Mufti, the conflict between Israel and its Arabs neighbors has nothing to do with an Islamic war against Judaism. "Before you got American citizenship, and I got Syrian citizenship, we were all brothers under the dome of God," he said. Jews had once lived in Syria peacefully and with fair treatment, he added, explaining that his own grandfather had a Jewish partner. "Jews lived in Syria for years and they still have a role in Syrian society," he said. Source: Haaretz

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/10/old-friend-challenges-bin-laden/?test=latestnews#ixzz0zEg0wded

Sorry, this was published in 2007. We're only hearing about it now after this interview.

I believe that I've already posted a bit of info about this organization here http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9153 Also, Mullah Omar banned ALL attacks on foreign countries as a condition of Osama bin Laden staying there, after Clinton's 1998 missile attacks in Afghanistan Mullah Omar got very upset with Osama and put him under a form of house arrest and ever since had continually asked for evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in the crimes but wasn't given any by the US Government. I'm sorry, but all it takes is for one to look properly and you'll find there is no such unanimity except that which is against extremism. I'm sure Al Jazeera will publish an article on it. I'm sure they will. But not in its full form, perhaps some excerpts that won't do it justice. Al Jazeera will probably do the same.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=allthingsct.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quilliamfoundation.org%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fpdfs%2Fletter-to-bin-laden.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fallthingsct.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F10%2Fnoman-benotman-takes-obl-to-task%2F

You accuse them of money laundering and supporting terrorism. Those are pretty hefty accusations. The hypocrisy is that you'd expect people not to assume you're guilty without you being found guilty yet you don't afford the same courtesy to others. That's a bit hypocritical.

Adam, for the purpose of working to safeguard the civil liberties of Muslims I trust CAIR does a good job. That's about all I trust them with. I think it's really important to ensure that civil liberties are protected and they're the only Muslim group that's effective at doing it.

Yet CAIR hasn't been charged with a crime. So until such a time that they are indicted for a crime by a court of law, they are innocent. A lot of fear mongering is directed at demonizing them but actually, they are simply an organization that focuses on civil liberties and promoting a better understanding of Islam. Are there people within CAIR, in particular historically that may have not been so good. Yes, but that doesn't mean CAIR is responsible for their actions. Now if you truly believe that you live in a land where people and organizations are found to be innocent before being proven guilty, then how can you justify holding opinions and asserting that the organization is guilty of crimes that it has not been indicted for nor has had the chance to defend itself against in a court of law? It's hypocrisy.

What differences between what they say and what they do are you referring to Michael??

Oh please.. If these barbarous acts contradict the teachings of Islam there can be no doubt that Muslims will move to distance themselves from those acts instead of just condemning them.

Where was I arrogant? In saying that Islam doesn't require reform? If a Muslim didn't believe Islam were perfect then there would be no point on being Muslim, because we believe that Islam is from God and as God is perfect, the message delivered through the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him should be too. That is why we state, that it's not Islam that needs reformation, rather it's the Muslim community that requires this reformation to get in line with proper Islamic teachings. You don't hear about it because you're not within groups that are on the receiving end and you're not a Muslim.. We don't do it to appease your lazy and ignorant self who can't be bothered getting off your backside to go and search for truth and instead expect it to be handed to you and therefore, are a slave to the corporate media who profits off of fear mongering.. Muslims always protest against such terrorism, sure it may not be done in the same way that you would expect it to be done by writing letters to the editor or protesting outside of embassies, we do it in our mosques and community groups because we are a religious group addressing issues within our groups, therefore we address our religious congregation. I've also lived in the Middle East, have you? I've seen people work against extremism there, they do grass roots work.. But of course you'd never hear about it because it doesn't sell newspapers.. A Zionist is one who promotes the idea that despite the fact that there were already people living in Palestine who'd been there basically uninterrupted for the same period as the Jews, that Jews who historically came from that land but had been in Europe for quite some time have a divine right to those lands in Palestine specifically that is more of a right than those people already living there and that a state should be created in those lands that was reservedly for Jews and was all about a Jewish identity. Why was it necessary? It's simple, because for more than one thousand years the West has not stopped persecuting the Jews, the Jews couldn't go a century without being persecuted by one group or another, so to stop genocidal Westerners from doing it again after WW2, Jews were fully supported to go to 'The Holy Land' and told to live there and essentially forced into conflict with Arabs. The major group at fault here is not the Zionists Jews, their occupation of Palestinian land is reactionary borne out of persecution from the West, it's a degree of criminal self defense.. Ie oppressing one life to save their own which can hardly be blamed on them.. The West should be held accountable for the creation of Israel due to the West's unfettered genocidal Antisemitism towards Jews. Yet here you are, another Westerner blaming the whole situation on the Arabs, as if the Arabs were responsible for the one of many Holocausts of Jews over the last 1000 years.. Get real.. Muslims have historically been the ones who've protected Jews from the persecution of the West and now because of the West's own trouble making and persecution of Jews and essentially forcing them out of Europe to one point on earth where you could heap them altogether out of your own societies yet profit off of the achievements and immense wealth they've brought to your nations, you've put one brother against another in a war that has no real justice anywhere.. And who benefits? Arabs? No.. Palestine's been occupied for 60 years now.. The Jewish Zionists? No, they've been occupying a state and been in warfare for the same amount of time.. Who benefits? The West, because Western savages got as they wished.. They got most of the Jews out of their countries just like they wanted to and still weren't made to look like the bad guys.. It's like having a really bad anger management problem and not being able to control yourself and then taking it out on your wife by constantly beating her bloody and then having the audacity to say to her that it's in her best interests to go back to her mothers' house if she doesn't want to be beaten anymore as if you have no responsibility to change yourself.. How about you just stop beating her you jerk.. The West bears the most responsibility for this whole mess.. Not the Jews who are Zionists and acting oppressively in self defense and certainly not the Arabs who are defending themselves and trying to liberate their lands from occupation.. You assume I don't do this.. I do attack such ideas and encourage those who do the same as I.. I've addressed youth, I've addressed prisoners, I've addressed scholars and I've also addressed terrorists who were plotting big attacks against cities in Australia and were caught.. The fact is that no terrorist suspect would be captured anywhere without the good Muslims who approached the authorities with concerns about their behavior.

Afghan war unwinnable quagmire, ex-CIA man says Dylan Welch September 2, 2010 THE war in Afghanistan is an unwinnable quagmire and poor US intelligence is leading to the deaths of Australian soldiers, a visiting former CIA officer says. Robert Baer, a decorated CIA field officer of two decades experience who had spent years in the Middle East, said any chances the US and its allies had of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan had already been squandered. The Coalition was fighting an unwinnable war, he said, and this was the case because victory required reliable intelligence. ''[uS intelligence agencies] have the same problem they had before 9/11. It is a system that doesn't work.'' That system sees CIA operatives and allied intelligence officers unable to gather reliable information because security concerns do not allow them to travel widely. And most do not speak the local language. ''They're all stuck behind the wire; they don't get out … it's like the crusades where you're stuck on your castle imagining what the natives are doing,'' he said. Describing Washington DC as a ''blank spot on the map'', he said that despite the massive growth of the intelligence agencies post September 11, 2001, there remained systemic failings. ''American intelligence after 9/11 has been unable to co-ordinate … the FBI will not share with the CIA. CIA has operational databases which they won't share with even others inside the CIA.'' All of this led to a dysfunctional intelligence community unable to provide reliable, contemporary intelligence that could allow the Coalition to win in Afghanistan. ''Twenty-two American soldiers have been killed since Friday, and Australia has lost 21 men … Afghanistan is a quagmire and it can only be fought with an effective counter-insurgency. It cannot be fought with Abrams tanks and F16s,'' he said. The author of four books and a film consultant, he has previously described how the CIA's role as a provider of human intelligence - on-the-ground intelligence gathering by field officers - has been steadily degraded under poor management. Earlier this week Mr Baer said the Australian government should confront Washington with the poor intelligence on Afghanistan that was recently released by WikiLeaks. ''The Australians should take the WikiLeaks information to the US [administration] and say: please tell us you have better information than this,'' Mr Baer said. Mr Baer is in Australia to speak at the Australian Security Industry Association Limited conference in Sydney. Source

Adonis, in America, "Land of Free", we have to bow down to the cops and lick their boots. When they say "jump" we say "how high." When we go to court and they lie about what we allegedly did, we have to submit to their higher authority. And of course we must never take notice of the fact that it's not really the cops who are lording their higher authority over us. Didn't you get the memo? Shayne That's why I'm fond of the Sheriff system.. You can vote your Sheriff in, if his officers are jerks and he doesn't reprimand them you can vote the Sheriff out.. In Western Australia the police illegally Tazed a man after he intervened to them attacking his son who was a good samaritan coming to the aid of a local pub owner who had violent people in her pub.. His son then ran up to the police officer and launched himself into the air towards the officer, his head connected with the police officer's head and knocked the officer down.. The officer was left paralyzed on one side of his body. The son was charged with serious bodily harm, as was the father and another son but were all acquitted because it was self defense.. The officers had no right to do that, they hadn't even placed the son under arrest, they just started beating him.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPRX1ULuPRw

Encouraging signs if this gains momentum. When will the mainstream, moderate Muslims make themselves heard? - has been a constant refrain for years. I'm sorry, but there are not moderate Muslims on that site. There are several Jews, Zionists of course and one Muslim who betrayed his religion by working for the Soviet Union's propaganda machine during the 80's. Also, what makes you say that moderate Muslims don't speak up about issues? They do.. Have you looked for it or have you just expected it to come to you? I'm surprised no one commented on the article in your quote.. Or maybe I shouldn't be so surprised by it.. I wish such organizations good luck. In the short run, a reformed Islam is probably the only realistic path to peace. However, in the long run, I am concerned that Reformed Islam will be to Islam what Socialism is to Communism, a religion that is still fundamentally incompatible with freedom and individual rights. I guess it depends upon the degree of reform, and only time will tell what the result will be. Darrell Islam isn't what requires reform.. It's people's interpretation of it.. I know you may think they are the same thing but they're not. One is changing the religion, the other is changing the people to fit more in line with the religion.. It makes Muslims feel suspicious when people talk about reforming their religion, as if the religion is the thing which is at fault.. Islam isn't at fault.. It's people that are. Outrageous.. In his own home? That is preposterous.. The officer should be fired and charged with serious assault..

It's not that big of an if. Bush and Cheney wanted to paint US planes in UN colors to try and get Saddam to shoot them down. They're looking for justifications for war, they plan for it. I didn't say they weren't Saudi or Egyptian agents of Al Qaeda acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. I'm sure they were, but who was Osama bin Laden working for? When did he stop working for the CIA? Did he even stop working for them? I was demonstrating that they were not Americans who hit the trade center but were instead from other countries like Saudi and Egypt.. I was being facetious by mentioning C,I,A? That's an assumption there that wouldn't fly.. The Iranians aren't that type of religious extremist that pulls off those attacks, therefore I doubt very much that the people would believe they did. It's not there MO to attack civilian targets with suicide attacks. Exactly, that is what I'm sure a false flag attack would consist of if it did. But it's more difficult because this isn't the American domain like the 9/11 attacks were, the Iranians are employing camera equipment to constantly spy on the American ships just in case such a thing occurs. In fact, do you recall when there were those Iranian boats relatively close to an American warship? The news was reporting on it as if they were playing chicken with the Ship or challenging it whereas they weren't and this was admitted later by the Admiral in charge (which pissed Cheney off). Nevertheless, at the time Americans and many media outlets were wondering why didn't the US Government attack the Iranian boats? All that is required, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, is that the reports come out that the Iranians are attacking the US ships even if it's the other way around. That would get the public support necessary to launch the war. I think the big problem is the resistance within the US military leadership to such an idea is huge and they're not wanting to fight the Iranians. They have plenty where that came from. Again, you make this assertion, but who has provided who with just cause to fight? Was it Iran who went into the US and launched terrorist attacks and blamed it on the democratically elected President of the US to create a coup? No.. It was the US who did that in Iran. The war had already been waged on Iran and hasn't ceased since then because the CIA has been at it since then so anything else you've mentioned is inconsequential. Iran has just been good enough not to respond militarily yet..

I believe it was more than a million, however to assume that the Iranians are in the same precarious position that they were in 1980 would be foolish. They were not as organized because the revolution had only just occurred. The military wasn't ready for a war. However since then they've been preparing for war and engaging in proxy wars. Their troops are well trained and ready for combat. I wouldn't suggest underestimating them by comparing them to that time. No, war would be bad for everyone, both Americans and people in the Middle East.. The only people that would benefit would be the international bankers that finance the wars and military industrial complex that builds the weapons. I believe Americans are truly ignorant of what is being done behind the scenes, I believe that they should care more about what their government does but nevertheless, they are guilty of no crimes. My hope is that those responsible behind the scenes who are also working against the American people are brought to justice for their crimes by the American people. I also don't think the US has been responsible for all evils since WW2 either. Though a lot of guilt has laid with successive governments. I hope the Americans get back to what the constitution says, that's it.. I think there would be people's militias in a system that is similar to that in the USA, the right to form your own militias should the nation be attacked or should the army launch a coup against the government. In part yes, but also to defend Iran unconventionally.. They play many roles Some of them yes, but to say that all of the Basij are like that would be like saying all US police are racists for the crimes of some. He didn't need to, the media chooses presidents in the US, people vote from candidates the media chooses. I don't think Ahmedinejad has as much backing amongst the Guardian Council as you believe. Not yet.. Yes I agree, they should. That's where you assume too much. Do you think the Iranians want another Western backed leadership after the Shah? The Iranians will fight because they don't want the US to put them through the same crap again as last time and they'd rather deal with it their own way.. Change will come to Iran, but through a process.. It took the US many years to get into the right track.. Iran needs time and no interference. Agreed You'd be foolish to assume that the current system didn't have the support of the majority of Iranians actually.. They're a nation of 70,000,000 people. A great many more protested in favor of Ahmedinejad than against him.. I hope Iran changes personally.. But it should come from within for lasting change, not at the barrel of a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3n5gfZtmkc&feature=player_embedded It was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans.

Yes, but who here is being led by tyrants that assumes they can win war and because of that launches wars with the support of the ignorant masses.. It's not Iran that's gone and attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and really wasted their time in both countries and will leave with their tail between their legs having failed.. it's the USA.. You're the one being led by the nose.. Not me.. The Iranians aren't Arabs, nor do they behave the way Arabs do.. The Iranians are posturing yes.. But their country is being threatened constantly.. To avoid war of course they'll try and show what kind of repercussions would occur.. Just like a lion who's territory is being threatened would roar and posture to deter it.. What gentle pussycat UN? The US Government plus the other Security Council powers are the ones who wanted sanctions against Iran, it's not as if this was some big vote by all nations either.. Nevertheless, why on Earth did they put the sanctions on Iran when Iran had already come to an agreement between themselves, Turkey and Brazil that would have ensured that the issue of Iran's Nuclear Program would have been solved.. That's my whole point, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never actually happened.. It has been revealed that it was in fact an attack by the USS Maddox against North Vietnamese torpedo boats but the US Government used the event and twisted it to say that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on US forces which gained support from the American public for war and then passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that allowed the war to go ahead. The Bush-Cheney administration had proposed to use US Navy SEALS to dress up like Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen and to launch a false flag attack on a US Naval ship to gain justification to launch a war on Iran.. US Intelligence since Kennedy's murder has used Nazi tactics of pre-emptive war and launching false flag attacks on US targets to get justification and support to launch war on other nations.. But it's not surprising considering that the CIA was really influenced by Nazi secret services brought over to the US by the US Government after WW2 to help setup the US efforts against the Communists. In contrast to Dwight D. Eisenhower's comments where he stated: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." I do think that a Coalition Commander will put boots on the ground.. I don't doubt it whatsoever.. However, the Iranians would much prefer that Coalition Commanders put troops on the ground rather than just bomb them from afar simply because it means the Iranians will be able to respond much better. You may think it's me who's being led by the nose, but I'm not the one who is ignoring historical precedence here..

A bit silly really when they use the argument comparing this to building a German cultural center near a concentration camp or a Disneyland near Hiroshima. If people of one nation A commit a crime against another nation B and then that very same nation A wanting to build a place of worship in the land of nation B then it may not be appropriate.. However, in this case, it's not the same.. In this case it's people of (allegedly) various nationalities C, I, and A that attacked another nation B and people of nationality B that wish to build a place of worship in their own country B.. Remember, nation B is a land where there is freedom of religion. Also, there are many Catholic churches in the Middle East despite the fact that the Catholics launched the Crusades that killed many Muslims, Christians and Jews.. You don't see Muslims protesting or trying to burn them down..

Oh please.. I would hate for the Imam to stop building the Center, simply because it would give a victory to those against the project who would then believe that every time they make a protest about something the Muslim community does, that Muslims would then give up their rights in fear of such people.. In addition to that, the cessation of the project due to these circumstances would give an even bigger victory to extremists in the Muslim world that would then be able use it for propaganda and say 'See! They say they love equal rights, but these don't apply if you're a Muslim and they hate Islam' It's now, more important than ever to build this community center because the repercussions of not following through will be bad, and ultimately very bad for the US.. There is only benefit for Americans if it goes ahead.

Precisely.. The impressive thing about Iran's forces are that they're structured in a very layered way to ensure proper defense of the nation.. I must stress that the Iranians have really gone ahead and perfected Guerrilla warfare.. They learnt a lot, especially through their own involvement with Lebanon, Afghanistan and other places. Yes, of course.. If Iran were to attack the USA the USA would have justification to declare war and respond against those attacks. Are we talking about the actual reason for attacking Iran or the reason the Western governments would use to gain support from their own people. I believe the only justification for such an attack will be given to them by means of a false flag operation by rogue members of the intelligence community in both Israel and the US backed by the Military Industrial Comlplex and Bankers to justify such a war.. The fact that they're not the ones that are proposing attacking the USA and have offered good relations with the US. I guess the question we need to ask first is who is 'they'? There is no benefit for the US government, the Iranian government nor their respective citizens in having a war in terms of whether it's in the interest of their nations.. It does beg the old adage.. Who benefits? The same people who always benefit in wars without justification.. The military industrial complex who build the weapons and make their money off of death, the financiers of the wars who lend huge sums of money to both sides and then profit hugely at the end of it.. Interestingly enough, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him despised both of these groups immensely because he saw their actions as being those who try and incite bloodshed to make a profit and consolidate power afterward.. It will also benefit the elite that wish to further limit the freedoms of every day people like you and I.. Self defense is a justification to go to war although Iran would never attack Israel first.. Exactly

I've watched several of this man's videos.. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just regurgitates rubbish and has no real understanding of Islam.. His idea that the West shouldn't recognize Islam as a religion is just silly.. Even more ridiculous is the idea that Americans should infringe on the rights of Americans to protect the rights of Americans..