Re: De Tocqueville on Islam

Bob Cooper wrote:


I don't know. Wikipedia calls him the "world foremost authority on
Qur'anic paleography," and they say he's working on a book. So
maybe he'll tell us. Then again, maybe he won't. As you know, some
working in this field ("Ibn Warraq" and "Christoph Luxenberg", e.g.)
feel compelled, for obvious reasons, to employ pseudonyms. If Puin
is this gentlemen's real name, perhaps he would be wise to quit
while he still has his head. IOW, perhaps he's said enough :>)

All that I am asking is that before you make up your mind, you need to
know what the Muslim response is. You don't even have to go searching
for a book in the library. You can find all the information that you
need on these two web sites:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/mosque_of_sanaa.htm

I don't know if you're familiar with the American idiom "Philadelphia
lawyer," but it seems to me what you are suggesting is that when God
delivered his immutable, infallible and *final* message to mankind, he
made it so obscure, complex and arcane that it literally takes a
Philadelphia lawyer to figure it out. Why do you suppose he was
unwilling to or incapable of passing down a simple message, crystal
clear and easily understood by everyone?

As I have said many times, Quran is fairly easy to understand

For those of us who agree with Professor Puin above, at least a
fifth of it is quite *impossible* to understand.

Bob, it's a real problem that with almost every discussion you go on a
fishing expedition and find something on the Internet, a negative
remark that somebody had made about Islam. Can't you think on your own?

Yes I can, but I also realize that there are many subjects -- like
"Qur'anic paleography" -- about which I lack expertise, and that there
are many folks smarter than me in general whose opinions may be
potentially of value to the discussion. For instance, my opinion that
large parts of the Koran are incomprehensible is, arguably, pure bunk.
However, the opinion of the world's "foremost authority on Qur'anic
paleography" -- a man fluent in classical Arabic, who has spent a
considerable portion of his life engaged in scholarly study of the
Koran -- carries rather more weight, wouldn't you agree?

See my references above:
Perhaps you are too lazy to click on the link, so let me help you
little bit:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, after the publication of the Atlantic Monthly, Puin wrote a
letter in which he revealed:

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic
fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries
elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an
itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This
phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur'an published in Cairo in
which is written:

Ibrhim next to Ibrhm
Quran next to Qrn
Simahum next to Simhum

In the oldest Yemeni Qur'anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of
not writing the vowel alif is rather common."

Prof. Azami comments:

"This deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of
intrigue that were spun around Puin's discoveries and making them a
topic unworthy of further speculation."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it was simply much ado about nothing.

However, if my "inability to think for myself" bothers you, there's a
simple solution. Stop responding to my posts. Heck, stop
*reading* them :>)

I can't. I think you can be helped :-)

<snip>

As I have said many times, you are foolishly or cunningly assuming that
terrorists read the Quran and without any other rhyme or reason go
about killing infidels. The fact that they are driven by feelings of
revenge-seeing hundreds of thousands of Muslims suffer or killed as a
direct result of US/British/Israeli/Australian/Russia/Indian/Filipino
policies-is just not acceptable to you. And the refusal to
acknowledge underlying issues of the conflict is another reason why
Americans and others have become victims of terrorism.

In other words, we deserve it? All of us. Americans and British
and Russians and Spaniards and Aussies and Filipinos and Indians
and Iraqis and even Jordanians attending a wedding (has anybody
figured out the reason for that one?). A view you have expressed
on many occasions.

As I have said many times, the English-speaking countries and their
allies are targets because of their Middle East policies; the Russia is
a target for brutalizing and killing Chechens; and India is a target
because for the 50 years it has denied the right of self-determination
to Kashmiris, which was recognized by the UN and their own Prime
Minister Nehru had agreed to. Jordanians were targeted because,
according to insurgents, they were trying to kill Israeli/American
intelligence officers who allegedly were staying at the hotel.

Nobody deserves terrorism but one can certainly prevent/greatly reduce
it by addressing the core political issues, such as
freedom/independence for Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris.
Terrorism is never justified, but as long as people in the US, Russia,
Britain and India are trying to maintain self-imposed amnesia, using it
as a trick to avoid granting freedoms to those they don't like,
extremists are going to keep on knocking on the door to get them to
acknowledge the plight of their people.

As long as there is hope, people will not resort to violence.


Furthermore,
you, and people like you, 'do' believe in collective punishment:,
yet you justify brutal murder of 200,000 innocent Japanese in WWII;

Ah, yes. I've been waiting for it. 1MAN reaches deep into his hand
and plays his ace, the dreaded Hiroshima card (I assume that's what
you refer to). But, as I've explained to you on several occasions,
Hiroshima -- tragedy that it was -- was a perfectly legitimate act of war,
not "brutal murder" or "collective punishment." We've been over that
before, and, if you insist, I can go over it again for you, though it
would probably be pointless.

you
justify punishing Palestinians for the crimes of few suicide bombers;

If the Palestinians themselves would deal with the suicide bombers,
instead of encouraging, aiding and abetting them, there would be
no need to punish anyone.

And then keep on quietly suffering, having no freedom and loosing their
properties to Israeli settlers, until Israelis have taken over the
entire country and then you will come back to say, "it's tragic, but
it's too late...?"

and I bet you now are justifying Israeli bombing of Lebanese cities for
one act of Hizballah fighters.


"One act of Hizbollah fighters?" What about the rockets? What
about years of barbaric terrorist acts? What about their avowed
intention to destroy Israel? You demean yourself with such a
disingenuous comment.

Hizbollah has mostly attacked Israeli soldiers who were/are occupying
Lebanese territory, which can hardly be described as "terrorism." They
have also fired rockets on Israeli towns, which I consider morally
wrong, but from your perceptive if they have declared a "war" then it
should be okay.

So why should your
people-Americans-be exempt from collective punishment for the
policies of your government?

*My* people? Are you an American citizen?

I have started using that facetiously because it is very apparent that
you have never considered me to be an American.

Now, my religion, Islam, is against collective punishment.

Bull! When Allahu Akbar screaming Muslim terrorists blew up and
shot those kids in Beslan, wasn't that "collective punishment?" When
Mohammed Atta spent the evening of Sept. 10 reading the Koran
they found in his luggage, and woke up the next day to slit a few
throats with box cutters and fly a plane into a building, wasn't that
"collective punishment?" Did he, in his reading, miss the part about
it not being allowed? When Bin Laden invoked the Koran to justify
the murder of 2,500 people at the WTC, was that "collective
punishment?"

That was my point! You have things in common with terrorists because
under certain circumstances you do believe in collective punishment, as
long as a "war" is declared. Since when Chechen rebels, Mohammed Atta
and Bin Ladin have become symbolic embodiment of Islam?


You are not. You have more things in common with terrorists than
I do!

That would be incorrect. I don't make apologies for them by suggesting
their victims deserved it, as you do. I think they're scum.

You certainly do make apolgies for dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and you justify it by calling it a "war." Bin
Ladin had also declared "war" and the President has also declared a
"War on Terror." The point that I have been trying to make is that
there is a disconnect in your sense of morality, whereas my position
has been consistent i.e killing non-combatants and destroy civilian
infrastructure, no matter what the circumstance, is evil.

With regard to other points in the article, I think the correct
reference is Verse 47:4, not 47:3., which says:

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the
necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,
and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom
(themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah
had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but
that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who
are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to
perish.

You are correct, and he makes the error twice (3 times, including the
footnote), so it's not a typo. Rather careless research on Professor
Furnish's part, I must agree.

That means he has no credibility, and you need to give up.

Hardly. It means he made one relatively minor error in his research.

There was no "research;" he simply gathered abti-Muslim material from
somewhere and came up with extremely biased opinions.

Still, the account is closer in time to the actual events than anything
else that I have seen so far. The top of the page also says, "This
account of the battle is from a 'Abd al-Wahid al Marrakushi, written in
1224. Unlike most other Arabic accounts of this victory, this work is
mostly free of legendary and mythic elements." That alone should tell
you that other accounts have been discredited by historians.

As for Professor Furnish, he clearly indicates his source in the article
with a footnote. How reliable it is, I have no idea, but I'm inclined to
give it at least as much credence as Mr. al-Wahid.

His source is:
Paul Fregosi, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the Seventh to
the Twenty-first Centuries (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998), p.
160.

Before you give credence to it, you need to find out what source
Fregosi used. See also my comments above.

And, you need to find out what source al-Wahid used. So, we both
have work to do.

Since it was your reference, I think the onus is on you.

The only Muslim country where beheadings is still the norm is Saudi
Arabia,

How about Iraq?

Why do you keep mixing ordinary Muslims with criminals? Beheadings
happen even in this country. Lot more people have been beheaded in the
US than in Iraq!

Really? Got a few examples, other than the odd psychopathic
head case?

<snip>

The illegitimate Saudi monarchy has terrorized the populace, and
because of it, few people dare to raise their heads.

Indeed. And, should the "insurgents" take over, it will simply be a
matter of exchanging one set of tyrants for another, exactly as in Iran.
But, I digress....

That's a false dilemma. Why not hand over the government to moderates
and leave? The insurgency is continuing on because Sunnis feel that
Shias are accommodating the American troops. Shiah, on the other hand,
feel that for the time being they need American troops to crush Sunni
resistance. So it's a vicious cycle, and if American troops leave,
things will get a lot better, as the main source of contention will go
away.

Actually, I was referring to the "insurgents" in Saudi Arabia, but
the observation applies in Iraq, as well. Interestingly, though, this
NYT article today suggests that many Sunnis have changed their
minds and want us to stay rather than leave them to the tender
mercies of the Shias:

http://tinyurl.com/rn9km

Go figure.

Well, what I fugue is that the civil war benefits nobody but the
pro-Israeli lobby which has been doing its utmost to keep the US troops
in Iraq to safeguard Israel. Before Bush I instigated "Shias" to start
their rebellion against Sadam, there was hardly any animosity between
Sunnis and Shias. Sadam was a secularist anyway and kept power within
his tribe, which happened to be Sunni, but it cannot be said that he
favored Sunnis over Shias. Immediately after the war, Americans started
calling out Iraqis by their sect, thus increasing sectarian tension. It
is simply the old divide and rule trick.


In 625 AD the Battle of Uhud was fought. That's the one we have been
discussing, the one in which Muslims lost. What's your point? I am
sorry, I don't get it.

Only that beheading has always been, and always will be a draconian
form of punishment designed to terrorize people.

I still don't see the connection between the Battle of Uhud and
beheadings. If you messed up your argument, you should be man enough
to admit that you had no idea what the heck you were referring to.


Once again, you are not thinking straight. There are already a number
of democratic Muslim countries, and the ones which are not have been
trying to become one. And it's freedom that Palestinians, Chechens
and Kashmiris have been seeking, which you with your allies keep
undermining!

"Freedom" has a very different meaning to you than it does to me,
I'm afraid. But, that's perhaps a topic for another thread.

Before you have any other freedom, you need the freedom of having the
right of self determination.

FOUR Muslim countries have ELECTED a woman as head of
state, out of eight in which free and fair elections have taken place.

I have to admit that's a rather puzzling anomaly I've never understood,
given the status of women in the Koran. How do you account for it?

In contrast, the US neither had a woman President nor is there an
expectation that there will be one in the next twenty years!

LOL. On the contrary, there are great expectations on the part of
Ms. Clinton that there will be one much sooner than that

If she wins New York, I would be surprised :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Hollywood and the Middle East
    ... World War II was far from black and white. ... "Syriana" purports to shed light on the relationship between oil, ... terrorism, the United States and the Middle East. ... Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics by eliminating 11 ...
    (rec.arts.movies.misc)
  • Hollywood and the Middle East
    ... World War II was far from black and white. ... "Syriana" purports to shed light on the relationship between oil, ... terrorism, the United States and the Middle East. ... Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics by eliminating 11 ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Bush goes Nuclear!
    ... >>Israeli, French, or British? ... The war of 1973. ... reduce terrorism on our planet is very important. ... Whats bothersome is the overall ineptitude of this leadership group. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Bush goes Nuclear!
    ... >>Israeli, French, or British? ... The war of 1973. ... reduce terrorism on our planet is very important. ... Whats bothersome is the overall ineptitude of this leadership group. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Bush goes Nuclear!
    ... >>Israeli, French, or British? ... The war of 1973. ... reduce terrorism on our planet is very important. ... Whats bothersome is the overall ineptitude of this leadership group. ...
    (sci.physics)