Posted on 01/10/2006 10:48:27 AM PST by sully777
MECCA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - A top Saudi cleric told Muslim pilgrims marking the climax of haj on Tuesday that the West was using the global phenomenon of terrorism to scare people away from Islam and discredit legitimate Muslim causes.
Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, the state-appointed preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, also called for stability in Iraq and said Islam was innocent of the charge of "terrorism."
"The campaign against Islam has become fierce and Muslims are being described in insulting terms to distort the image of Islam and scare people away from it," he told the 2.5 million pilgrims in a sermon to mark the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha.
He accused Western countries of hypocrisy in promoting freedom and democracy, citing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"When the oppressor Zionist enemy uses its war of smart bombs and tanks against our brothers in Palestine, violating our holy sites, that's not terrorism to their mind -- but defending land, religion and honor is," Sudeis said.
Israel has largely crushed a Palestinian uprising launched in 2000 and Al-Haram al-Sharif, the site of Islam's holy Al-Aqsa mosque, is in Arab East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after its capture in the 1967 Middle East war in a move that has not been recognised internationally.
Israel says military measures taken in Palestinian areas are self-defence against suicide bombings and other attacks.
The Palestinian issue is often cited by Islamic militants, including those fighting the U.S.-backed government in Iraq.
"Islam is innocent of this grave phenomenon (of terrorism). The shedding of blood in this country and other Muslim countries is a forbidden criminal act," the cleric said, adding that fighting Islamic rulers was "foolish" and counterproductive.
"We should not forget our brothers in Iraq in the continuing spiral of injustice and murder, and (we should) act seriously to bring security, stability and unity to them," he said.
A campaign of violence to bring down the U.S.-allied Saudi rulers has largely run out of steam over the past year. The kingdom has deployed thousands of security forces at the holy sites to prevent possible attacks during the haj.
Nuts, he is on to us.
So we've been wrong all this time that these terrorist acts all around the world were planned and executed by Muslims? You just can't trust the media these days!
Whew! What a relief...The cleric said that terrorist acts are "criminal" and forbidden in Islam. Oh boy, do I feel relieved now. Just makes all the difference in the world.
They can hire OJ to find the real killers.
Only the fouth paragraph before we discover "the Jooos are doing it."
Does anyone else see the dichotomy in this sentence? We are not terrorists and it is foolish to resist us?
I'm convinced that islam and terrorists are not compatible. How bout y'all?
No, over a millenium of death and destruction discredits Islam quite well... Terrorism is just the latest incarnation.
"Stop JIhad Now!"
Speaking of hypocrisy... amazing that Muslims have the gall to claim their "holy sites" are being violated while a mosque sits atop the Temple Mount.
It's a WHOLE 'nother dictionary. The words do not mean what we THINK they mean.
And remember- Islam only considers other MUSLIMS as human beings and people! So, of course, all the murder of infidels doesn't break the laws of Islam.
It is islamic terrorism; they own it. If it discredits Islam, so be it. The West could not care less and need do nothing to maintain the reputation of that sect.
Moolahs and Democrats, What are your actual causes? What do you really stand for. How would you run things differently?
Writing that I see that we get clearer answers from the Mooselimb Moolahs.
Honestly, Why is is so hard to get someone in the public eye to ask Fat @ss and fat @ss 2 (Ted and shillary) to actually say what they would do different than Bush. They just b!tch about his policy and give absolutely no plan of their own.
Exactly.
It remains true that not all Muslims are terrorists.
However, most terrorists are the sons of Mohammed.
And this is diffent than the use of the auto da fey and the Inquisition to discredit Catholicism, and Christianity in gerneral, how?
If the point is to say that, historically, this or that religion engaged in questionable practices and activities, in the hopes of establishing some sort of moral and ethical equivalency, then why should Islam be immune to this sort of thinking? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?
Yes, Christians have engaged in pogroms, the burning of heretics at the stake, witchcraft trials and a series of wars based upon doctrinal differences. This is documented, historical fact.
Islam has also engaged in these practices (conversion at sword point, conquest as religious duty, exploitation of racial/religious differences for profit (not prophet, of course), sectarian slaughters, inquisitions, et. al. It can hardly be argued that the most ardent practicioners of terror tactics nowadays are Christians,or that Christianity, Buddhism, etc. provide religious sanction for the use of terror as a means of advancing the religion (at least anymore. We've had a reformation and an Enlightenment, where you have not).
Be careful where you cast aspersions.People in glass houses and all that...
I cannot think of a more legitimate Muslim cause than converting or killing Infidels. - Tom
And this is diffent than the use of the auto da fey and the Inquisition to discredit Catholicism, and Christianity in gerneral, how?
"I cannot think of a more legitimate Muslim cause than converting or killing Infidels. - Tom"
Interesting ... just when did you become a Muslim Cleric ?
It also remains true that all Muslims believe in the Koran.
And the Koran expressely ORDERS the terrorism that Muslims have caused, and are still causing.
Therefore it is perfectly logical to conclude that all Muslims believe in and support terrorism.
If they do not, they disobey the Koran- and are not Muslims.
Saudi Arabia is the primary site of the terrorist cancer.
Hey Wombat..
The inquistion was about 500 years ago..
Welcome to the 21st century.. and the Muslims still haven't caught up.
Terrorism does discredit Islam. No question about that. But the cleric has it wrong. That isn't the fault of the west. Its 100% the fault of the muslim terrorists.
I will wait until I see a public Discommodation.
Wrong... what it does is, EXPOSE Islam.. stripping Islam naked.. to expose the nastyness within..
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword Israel.
..................
Karl Rove must be behind this "global phenomenon of terrorism."
What part didn't you understand? In the quest to promote Islam as "no different from other religions, and therefore just as humane or relevant" the "cleric" makes the oldest strawman argument in the book; "you did it too!".
If one can point to the abuses of the Inquisition (for example)as a reason to discredit Papal Catholicism, then why cannot one point to a movement that encourages people to slam airliners into office buildings for the same reason?
How are the two situations different? The Inquisitor was empowered by God (via the Pope) to weed out the unbelievers and stand as a shining example of pure orthodoxy. The suicide bomber is empowered by God (via his imam, ideology or delusional dreams) to weed out the unbelievers and stand as a shining example of pure orthodoxy.
We would agree, I'm sure, that Christianity, despite it's good works, has a lot to answer for historically. Islam does to. The difference is that those who lead the Islamic faith are not willing to make the great leap into the 21st cenury and view their history objectively. He doesn't WANT you to think of Islam in objective terms. He wants you to simply believe what he says and forget the evidence in front of your eyes.
He does not seek an acceptance of Islam as much as he does an excuse for it.
Terrorism isnt being used to discredit Islam .. Islam is doing a might fine job of that by itself... I'm sure the MOAB would be more then happy to speed this process up in Saudi Arabia.
Excuse me, but the point was that the man seeks to establish some kind of moral equivalence while excusing the excesses of his own religion (or it's practitioners).
To quote Orwell "two blacks don't make a white".
You cannot have it both ways: you cannot claim to be a "religion of peace" while your clergy goes out and advocates the murder of innocents as God's work, while casting stones at other religions that once engaged in the same practices, but which have matured over time and given such things up.
I do not excuse the excesses of Christianity, but those days are long gone. It doesn't make Islam any more peaceful or superior, nor is it an effective argument to blunt criticism of Islam.
"And the Koran expressely ORDERS the terrorism that Muslims have caused..."
... and just where is that ?
Interesting ... just when did you become a Muslim Cleric ?
Well its like this. I took the painful time to read the Koran all the way through. There are over a hundred chapters.
I had no idea of what really was in there when I started reading, because of so many apparent different interpretations.
When I was done I came to the same conclusion as Bin laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta and millions of other Muslims. That is to say. Convert or kill all non- believers.(Infidels) There are plenty of Muslim Clerics who say the same thing as we are finding out. And plenty of clerics who will deceive us by using Taqiyya to keep the Infidels off balance by telling us it is a religion of peace.
Or just telling you what you want to hear,because you don't want to face up to the fact that we have to kill them,and poison the religion with a good dose of Infidel decadent culture and politics. -Tom
"I had no idea of what really was in there when I started reading, because of so many apparent different interpretations."
... so I suppose you have read ALL of the different interpretations ? ... obviously discounting the ones made by those who rabid anti-islamics since no self-respecting Muslim would be learning from them anyway. ?
The campaign against islam has not even started yet.
When it does, they will know.
I thank you for the clarification. I was reading your original post much differently than this new one. I'm not always so keen on clarification before launching into a response. So, the wisest response I could think of was HUH? My DW says the second response from me is usually D'oh, but that's another topic.
Good points.
I do.
Cross referencing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555752/posts
You're welcome, and sorry about the "What part didn't you understand" bit. In hindsight, that seems really sarcastic and now I regret writing it.
Anyways, just an observation that I made today (my brain sometimes wanders and I can't help but think of this stuff) but it seems to me that a persecution complex is the first and most vital requirement for a follower of Islam. Without a sense of persecution, and the 'righteous anger' that stems from it, Mohammed would never have achieved what he did. The pathology is the foundation.
That pathology allowed the 'religion' to spread because by convincing it's followers that they belonged to a persecuted, select few, it stoked the fires of conquest.
I'm not sure of the psychological term, but it seems to me that Islam is a social and political system that was constructed to 'right the wrongs' as perceived by Mohammed, and to justify his and his followers most egregious behavior.
It also seems to me that if one is infected by this kind of pathology (the need to see oneself as persecuted) then it stands to reason that once ignored you are compelled to perform acts designed to garner negative attention, and thus, reinforce the notion of persecution.
Hmmm...Perhaps I've stumbled upon the basis of Islamic Terrorism; mental instability? Now I'm wondering if we have JDAMS capable of dispensing Zoloft over an entire region....
"... so I suppose you have read ALL of the different interpretations ? ... obviously discounting the ones made by those who rabid anti-islamics since no self-respecting Muslim would be learning from them anyway. ?"
Hmm, shouldn't be a difficult task. There are NOT different versions of the Koran, only different interpretations of what it says. This is for the following reasons:
1. In Islamic culture, Arabic is considered the language of God. It is the language that all Muslims are to pray in (I wonder how they manage this in Iran, however, where Persian is spoken) and it is the ONLY language that a copy of the Koran is supposed to appear in (this is according to the Koran itself, I believe). No Koranic verse can possibly appear in any other language because to write them in another language is to defile them. All Korans written in Arabic, therefore, say exactly the same thing (in theory).
2. Translations of the Koran (just like translations of the Old and New Testaments) into non-Arabic languages will, with certainty, not reflect what is said int he original exactly. Certain words or concepts do not always translate directly from one language to another, nor is there any way to vouch for the source of the original translation or the skill of the translators. Therefore, in any real or religious sense, the man could not have read the 'true' Koran.
Just a little clarification. Unless the man reads Arabic fluently, he could not have read THE Koran, only a pale imitation. I'm sure the real one is much more vicious and disgusting.
"I'm sure the real one is much more vicious and disgusting."
LOL ... and you've learned this from a fluid Arabic reader, one that is able to translate the words and concepts, I presume...
But you do bring up many valid points to refute the self-declared experts that think they know what it says.
No, I can't claim to be fluent in Arabic, nor would I want to. But, when I was on my way to my master's in history I did take quite a few religion courses. What I learned of Islam (from both Muslim and non-Muslim instructors who drank the Kool-Aid) was enough to make me gag.
Yeah, well, Christians kind of gave up those bad habits a couple of centuries ago.
OK, outside of human rights violations on their women, what are their legitimate causes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.