Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism

[ACPlayer]

If you reread what I have written in this thread it is not in support of him. I actually said that I have only a cursory following of the case.

However, I also said, that our system has acquitted him of being a terrorists supporter as defined by our laws. I also said that I would be more willing to go by the verdict of the jury than the, likely, out of context opinions offered by an unknown Internet writer.

Now, if you would rather take the words of an internet opinion monger than that of the jury who has been offered all the facts in context by a zealous prosecutor -- then that is your way of thinking through an issue.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, Islam was set up as a personal religion without a formal structure (like the Pope). This has led to many interpretations including some extremist interpretations. A religion should really be personal rather than come with a political structure. Unfortunately, for Islam, this has created a PR problem in modern society as there is no single voice. The Mullah with the biggest loudspeaker is picked up by some to be the true voice of Islam and the silence on the part of the many is considered to be acceptance of the terrorist activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, ACPlayer, then why not look to what the Prophet Mohammed himself did, how he followed the Koran, how he interpreted it. Look to the words of Mohammed (Peace be upon Him) in the hadiths, look at his many military campaigns of conquest, look at his slaughter of 600 surrendered Jews at Medina.

Do you want to know how to interpret a Koranic passage?

"Sura 8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made great slaughter in the land"

Well, Mohammed, Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon Him!), knew exactly how to interpret it: he made slaughter before taking captive slaves from amongst the women and children of the conquered.

If you are unsure what is meant by the Koran, O ACPlayer, and are confused by opinions of any mullahs or imams, there is no need for such confusion on your part: just look to the blessed example of Mohammed!

Sura 9:73 "O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."

Following this command of Allah, Mohammed the Last Prophet (Peace be upon Him!) waged many great battles upon the infidels, leading over 20 such military campaigns himself!

So you see, ACPlayer, there is no need at all for your confusion. The blessed example of Mohammed the Last Prophet (Peace be upon Him!) makes all things clear. As Sura 2:193 says, "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme", and as Sura 9:5 says "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.".

But have no fear, O ACPlayer! For surely, as Sura 47:5 says, "Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them"

and as Sura 44:51-57 says, "Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. "

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if you would rather take the words of an internet opinion monger than that of the jury who has been offered all the facts in context by a zealous prosecutor -- then that is your way of thinking through an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm NOT taking the words of an "internet opinion monger": rather it is the words of al-Arian himself. And he has clearly stated his belief in the campaign of jihad and suicide bombing against Israel.

[New001]

Please don't forget that Muslims aren't the only religious group to commit atrocities in the name of their religion in the past or in the present.

[zipo]

>>The American Muslim community, IMO, has had their collective heads in the sand<<

Agreed. No pun intended, I'm sure.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While in many cases it might be reasonable to forgive a defendant acquitted by a jury of his peers, it is not with al-Arian. Regardless of whether or not the jury believed his actions constituted a specific legal violation by acting “in furtherance of” terrorist attacks, there is no mistaking what is in al-Arian’s heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our system doesn't allow for juries figuring out what is in someone's heart. They do, I'm sure, but juries are charged with rendering a verdict based on evidence - nothing else.
<font color="white"> . </font>
If I'm on a jury and "know in my gut" someone is guilty, but the prosecution did not prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt - I've got no choice but to acquit. Supposedly.
<font color="white"> . </font>
A juror who decides to vote "guilty" because of his "feelings" or "suspicions," is no different than a cop who renders "street justice."

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH, sir. So far.


[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'd trust the cop's gut before the juror's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops! Blunder.

[Blarg]

This always happens. Same thing with that Chinese nuclear scientist who snuck back into the office at 3:00 a.m. on Christmas Eve to sneak out more tapes, and then "lost" them. The prosecution did a lousy job and the judge censured them, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy was pulling all kinds of crap left and right and with no reasonable defense. Suddenly he became a racial hero just because he was accused and of a certain race.

It will ever be thus.

What surprises me is that we have to pretend otherwise, when it has never been any other way and never will be in virtually any conceivable reality. Well, maybe not on Star Trek.

[nicky g]

I said I would respond to some of BluffThis's Quranic quotations a few weeks back but never got round to it, so I'll do it in response to this post, as you quote similar/some of the same passages. Both of you quote verses out of context, which often skews their meaning, and sometimes translations that seem designed to bring out the most belligerent possible meanings (in that there are other translations that give rise to less agressive, and often openly anti-agressive, meanings).

For example, you quote:
""Sura 8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made great slaughter in the land" ".

I’m not sure where you got this as I can’t find any online transcript that has exactly the same wording, but never mind, there are very similar ones out there. First of all there’s the issue of the translation: my translation of the Quran, the recent Abd al Haleem translation (which I strongly recommend; published by OUP), has this verse reading: “It is not right for a prophet to take captives before he has conquered the battlefield”, which is markedly less aggressive – no inducement to “slaughter” first, take prisoners later. This version has “It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.”
Meanwhile this version has “It does not behove a prophet that [he] should have captives until he engages in regular fighting”, and comments : “This verse lays down the general rule that captives should not be taken unless there is regular fighting and the enemy is completely overpowered. It cuts at the root of slavery. Only those who take part in war to destroy Islam and are defeated can be made prisoner. .
Thus while your interpretation of the verse is “Prophets must kill people before they can take prisoners”, these Pakistani Muslims’ interpretation, based on a different translation, is “Prisoners can only be taken [by Prophets] in regular battle” ie don’t resort to kidnapping or slavery. Neither of us have the knowledge of the text or classical Arabic to settle which interpretation is right, but clearly you should be wary of making generalisations about the entire religion based on out of context excerpts of contentious verses that are open top various translations and interpretations.

“Sura 9:73 "O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."”

First of all, this says “O Prophet”. It doesn’t enjoin anyone else to do this (note also that the previously discussed verse also refers to "Prophets", not people in general). One of your criticisms of the Quran has been that it makes general timeless commands to all Muslims, while you claim for example that the excesses of the Old Testament are only one-off messages to historical characters that don’t necessarily apply in general. Well note here that clearly isn’t the case (and often isn’t; many verses are addressed to the Prophet or refer to specific occasions). Also note that my translation says “strive against” rather than “make war”, which given the Arabic is jahada is certainly a plausible translation given that jahada (from which jihad comes) means to struggle or strive. The Hell reference is hardly much different from what most religions claim. So while you would presumably argue that this is an injunction for Muslims to make war on unbelievers, it is more plausibly a call specifically to the Prophet to strive against them in an undefined manner.

Note also that this verse is from Sura 9, as are the next two you quote, and as were most of BluffThis’s quotes if I recall correctly. The context here is absolutely key. You both quote the verses as if they were general, timeless commands to fight against/subdue/dhimmify all infidels or what have you. In fact, it refers to a specific historical context. The Haleem version presents it as referring to an occasion where God allowed the Muslims to break their pledges, although giving them four months notice first, to some non-believers because those non-believers had broken a treaty with the Muslims (by supporting others against them) and continued to fight against them. He uses some Arabic grammar to show that the reference to idolaters in 9:5, which you quote, refers specifically to those who broke the treaty. Neither of us have the knowledge of Arabic to know whether he’s right or wrong but given that he is a professor of classical Arabic, I think we’d have a hard time finding a reputable refutation of his point.

Now you can say that the Quran is timeless for Muslims and always valid. True, but what’s the lesson from this verse? You would presumably argue that it's “Always fight the unbelievers until they submit” as was permitted in this context. I think a more tenable one is “It’s legitimate to fight people who break treaties or fight you; but always be ready to be merciful (mentioned in the next verses).” Indeed much of the sura consists of specific condemnations of people who break their word rather than "unbelievers".

The point of all this is not that the translations and interpretations that I use are definitely right and your are wrong, although I do think the total lack of context perverts the meanings of your quotes. The real point is that the meaning, even the correct translation, of these verses are highly contested and depend on correct interpretation of an ancient language as well as a detailed knowledge ot textual and historical context - and even then how these should be applied to other contexts and situations is not going to be solved in a manner that would convince all people.

As the Quran says: “Some of its [ie scripture] verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambigious. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.” (Haleem, 3:7).

[ACPlayer]

If that is what he said, then it is hardly worth condemning. We have two groups of terrorists duking it out in the middle east -- let em. Although I doubt if he said this as I suspect that would put him afoul of the ghastly patriot act and he would have been convicted.

If he said something against America, well he would have been punished for sure.

His words and opinions are not worth my time, except to defend his right to say what ever he wants. His actions have been scrutinized and pass muster (at least that of the jury).

[ACPlayer]

I will let nickyG -- far more articulate than I -- discuss the Koranic interpretation.

I will say that quoting scripture out of context is foolhardy at best.