Posted on 03/27/2003 8:26:19 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
I was completely numb as I watched the videos of the attack on September 11. As the attack was investigated and we learned that the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists, I could not shake the thought that something in their religion made these attacks seem legitimate in their eyes.
So I started, very cautiously, to look into what Islam stands for and what it considers important. I did not want to jump to conclusions. I wanted to know the truth. As a Christian and a serious student of the Bible, I am familiar with the bloody passages of the Old Testament. For this reason I proceeded with caution in my research. My goal was to discover the truth about Islam. My research did include some limited reading of the Qur'an (known in the West as the Koran), but it mainly consisted of reading and listening to people who were very knowledgeable of the religion.
First of all, in order to understand Muslims we need to know what they think of Allah, and we need to look at their worldview. We need to understand moderate Muslims, but we also need an understanding of the radical point of view.
Dr. Samuel Schlorff, an expert on Islam with Arab World Ministries, has written an excellent paper on the religion. He makes a scholarly comparison between Christianity and Islam. Much of the information used in this article regarding the history of Islam was drawn from this paper.
Here are some key points of Islamic theology:
1. Allah is Absolutely Transcendent
Allah is unlike anything that exists. This means that Allah is completely mysterious. Muslims believe that they can know the truth about him, but they can't have any knowledge of him as a person. He is a distant god who lets only his will be known.
2. Divine Guidance
Muslims believe the Qur'an offers guidance for living life and it is usually referred to as "a guidance and mercy for believers." (Sura 27:77) Their law (the Shari'ah) consists of the Qur'an as well as other materials.
3. Islam is from Heaven
The Qur'an describes its revelation as a "sending down" of material from a heavenly being. Because it came in the Arabic language, it is referred to as a heavenly language. From this idea stems the thought that an Islamic community is of heavenly origin. Dr. Nabil Jabur was interviewed recently on Moody radio. He is the author of the book The Rumbling Volcano, which deals with radical Islam. He states that the Qur'an is comprised of recitations given by Muhammad, which Muslims believe came from Allah for specific situations. Thus, when Muhammad was experiencing a tranquil period in his life, the tolerant recitations came forth. When he was having problems with three Jewish tribes, the militant recitations came forth. The Qur'an teaches both peace and war.
Some verses dealing with tolerance are:
Sura 2:5-6 - There is no compulsion in religion.
Sura 5:82 - The nearest in affection to the believer are those who say we are Christian.
Dr. Jabur stated. "When only one side of the Qur'an is presented alone, that is not the truth."
4. A Community in Submission
The Islamic view of the world is that man is inherently good. If man is depraved by society, then any government can create a perfect society by enforcing Islamic law. Muhammad was the head of state of Medina, which Muslims believe was a perfect society. This form of Islamic government is considered by Muslims to be an example of living in true submission to divine law. This degree of submission is greater than any that exists outside of Islam. For Muslims such a community represents the kingdom of Allah on earth. They believe the future of Islam is to dominate the whole House of War (which is how they refer to the entire non-Muslim world) until it is controlled by an Islamic state. The ultimate goal is that the entire world be under Islamic law.
What does the word Islam mean? We have been told, that Islam is related to the Arabic word meaning "peace." This is partially accurate, except that the word means a specific kind of peace. A more accurate translation is "surrender" or "submission." It describes the calm that exists when a vanquished soldier lays down his arms in submission. Dr. Schlorff states, "The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence 'in the way of Allah.'"
Sura 2:216 - Fighting is prescribed for you.
Sura 2:190-192 - Fight in the cause of god, those who fight you enslave them. Fight them until there is no more persecution and oppression and there prevails justice and faith in god.
Sura 9:5 - Fight and enslave infidels.
During his interview Dr. Jabur was asked what the typical Muslim would think of Osama bin Laden. Would they approve or disapprove of what he is doing? He stated that it would be possible for religious Muslims to have either opinion. Some are embarrassed by what bin Laden is doing. Others think that grievances which have existed for years have come to a head in a justified violent retaliation.
Dr. Jabur tried to illuminate the meaning of a phrase which is used by Muslims and which has not been explained to us. Jihad does not mean holy war. Jihad means "striving for god." It comes in three degrees: 1) Striving against sin in one's own life; 2) The act of motivating others to do good; and 3) Using violent means to stop a wrong act is justifiable if necessary. This third degree is the one with which we are most familiar.
After Muhammad died in Medina he was succeeded by four caliphs who ruled in his place. (A caliph is "one who comes after.") The leadership of Muhammad's Islamic society was divided. Sunnis accept that all four were legitimate. Shi'ites believe that only one, Ali, was the rightful successor. The result has been a division within the Muslim world pertaining to Islamic law and spiritual authority. That is why we do not have a single Muslim leader to whom the world can appeal to stand up and lead the Muslims of the world away from bin Laden.
Shortly after the Attack, Chuck Colson brought up some very interesting points on his radio show, Breakpoint. He stated that due to the lack of widely recognized Islamic leadership, bin Laden is attempting to unify the radical Muslims living in moderate Muslim states. He would like nothing more than to have them overthrow those states so that he can unify them and install himself as the leader of one large radical Islamic nation, and wage war against the West. As evidence of this, he pointed out that bin Laden has not shown much interest in the Palestinians in the past. Now he is speaking out in their behalf in order to gain their support.
Of course most Muslims do not support such violence as terrorism. However watching a Muslim country being bombed day after day might change the minds of even the most moderate and cause them to support bin Laden. Perhaps that is the plan: Goad Muslims into hating the West so much that anything goes. The Qur'an supports both violence and peace. They may think that they can use violence now and then have peace on their own terms later
I don't know, obviously such a thing would be very subjective as you are dealing with a great many people. I am sure there would be a diversity of views here, as is the case when you try to build a consensus on anything religious.
I do know that in my experience "moderate" Muslims can be very "moderate" Almost benign in fact.
I used to manage a chain of retail stores in Cincinnati. Cincy can be very dangerous at times. I can tell you stories about people (two separate incidents, btw..) of people being attacked with baseball bats in front of our stores (which I witnessed myself) Armed robberies. Our salespeople being attacked and robbed. Break in's. Public beatings. It can be a very dangerous environment.
Our plaza maintenance man was a Muslim. Very mild, honest and upright. Completely non-violent. Total contrast to the vast majority of people in the area, regardless of religion. I actually had the guy pegged as a wimpy, lefty, peacenik for years.
One day I offered him a piece of pizza and he refused. I razzed him about it and come to find out he was fasting, because of his Muslim religion.
Yeah, I agree that he's not going to get to heaven with Allah. However, it's difficult for me to condemn him outright for his religion when he proved himself to be one of the most worthy & decent men in the entire area.
If my mothers car broke down, I would certainly want this man (even if he is a Muslim) to help her over and above most of the amoral street urchins that dwell there. So it bothers me when people just blindly lump all American Muslims together and call for their oppression.
I think it's counter productive and I think it's unjust. Maybe he wasn't a "true" Muslim, but so what? Frankly if all of them behaved like Lamonte, we would never have a problem.
Further still, oppressing him because of his religion would only validate Osama's words and quite possibly drive him to the harsh side of Islam. Who would benefit from that?
I think allot of the people calling for their own, domestic jihad against Islam are speaking out of either ignorance or blind hatred and would do us far more harm than good.
That and the Constitutionality of such an action are about my only beefs with the Anti-Muslim crowd.
Iraq.
Currently? Afghanistan... the Philippines... and it won't end there.
The War on Terror isn't like other wars, it's being fought in many nations at once, including our own, and not always by our troops. We were in Mozambique shortly after 9/11. We've been in places of which you and I are totally unaware. After we're done in Iraq, we'll be taking a detour to North Korea, or heading to Iran, or Syria.
Our enemy is clearly not Arab nationalism.
That's where we have to disagree. Clearly our enemy is Arab nationalism.
Ever since the Nasserians reared their heads in the Suez in '57 and later in '67 they have formed the core of our problems. If it wasn't for Nasser fomenting Pan-Arabism in the Gulf without any oil we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
The foundation for the current conflict lays squarely on Qaddafi and Libya and the embargo of '73 when we finally saw the last of a twenty year surplus vanish while the enviros hamstrung the North Slope.
The problem is that Libya sold the idea of an "oil weapon" to OPEC at a time when it could finally be used.
Since then the power vacuum in the region has been waiting for us to arrive. It didn't happen in Lebanon and it didn't stick in the Gulf War in '91.
This time we'll get it right. The old Redline agreement has come home to roost and the Brits backed the best horse.
It's no accident that the EU championed by France is facing a cash crisis while Turkey flails in Cyprus to the chagrin of the Turkish parliment who can't find a good reason to grant us basing and overflights.
It's a complicated world but it's made much simpler when you look at it from the wellhead to the terminal.
This time it's not about access or pricing or even tanker routes, this time it's about stability. And from 1910 until now we're setting things straight. We're assuming Britain's role as the sole source of force and reason in a region that refuses to grow up.
Far too many of our adversaries are not Arab and speak no Arabic, for that to be true. Arabs play a significant role, but the problem is vastly larger.
Indeed. The problem is that the ones in the oil producing regions are Arab and the stumbling block has always been Israel. Iran and the Persians being the obvious exception. But their position is made more clear by the acts of the former Shah and our attention to that country.
Two points of contention bind them: They replaced Britain with us because we projected power in to the Persian Gulf. And because we are the largest consumer of oil from them and they know it.
The rest is academic.
Consider the ramifications of a runaway Islamic oligarchy which supports conflict from feudal interests to further the consolidation of power under a collectivist system such as OPEC. And then consider that interest faced with the future.
It makes the actions quite clear. Maintain the current system and check the wind. In this case the ME didn't see us backing up our words with deeds.
They're watching this as much as we're doing it. And they're not the only ones. China has enough information to keep enough analysts busy for a generation.
You're witnessing a realignment of global proportions. And in this case the bailout won't come from the federal government with its dubious anti-trust laws but rather from the force of actions.
This is an answer to Suez and the "energy crisis" with the added prospect of nailing terrorism. All it takes is presenting a losing picture to project thugs from the surrounding countries down to the valley of death.
This time we'll nail the fanatics while securing the eventual outcome that will rob the UN of its fat "oil for food" dollars while staving off the threat of the EU.
Call it an empire or call it colonialism but don't call it the Truman Doctrine. That dog won't hunt.
Taliban's Omar Issues Fresh Order to Wage 'Jihad' on U.S. Troops
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Amid stepped up attacks in Afghanistan, the Taliban's elusive leader Mullah Mohammed Omar has issued a fresh call for a holy war against U.S. troops and Afghans who work with them.
His latest decree, released in posters widely displayed in eastern Afghanistan, carries the signatures of 600 Islamic clerics reminding the faithful of their duty to wage jihad, or holy war.
"Whenever the non-Muslims attack a Muslim land it is the duty of everyone to raise against the aggressor," black-and-white poster reportedly written by Omar said.
"We were blamed for Usama bin Laden because they said he was a terrorist and he was taking shelter with us. But what is the fault of Iraq? Iraq has no Usama bin Laden in his country," it said....
The source of this call for jihad is not an Arab; the cause of his jihad is not Arab nationalism; Mullah Omar is calling all Muslims to jihad; and the object of his wrath is any non-Muslim who stands against Islam, not just America.
"We've been in places of which you and I are totally unaware. After we're done in Iraq, we'll be taking a detour to North Korea, or heading to Iran, or Syria."
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 01, 2003
Syria, Teheran on U.S. radar?By Sridhar Krishnaswami
New York march 31. Two days after the U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sharply criticised Syria and Iran for complicating American war efforts in Iraq, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has stepped up pressure on the two countries — warning Teheran that it should stop its drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction; and Syria must end its support to terrorism.
In a tough message that came by way of a speech to a pro-Israel lobby, Gen. Powell placed Iran and Syria in the same category with Iraq and warned them of grave consequences should they continue to promote terrorism. Syria, he said, "faces a critical choice'' on whether it continues "direct support for terrorism in the dying days'' of the regime of Saddam Hussein; and Gen. Powell demanded that Iran should stop "its terrorism against Israel''.
Last Friday, the Defence Secretary pointedly warned Syria and Iran for complicating the coalition war objectives in Iraq saying that Damascus was selling military equipment to the Saddam Hussein regime that included night vision goggles; and Iran was inserting or allowing the Badr Brigade comprising anti-regime Iraqi exiles back into the country. But Washington has not said if and how the Badr Brigade has come directly in the way of coalition forces. But Gen. Powell is seen to have gone a step further in bringing in terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The sharp observations against Syria and Iran in recent days have prompted apprehensions here and elsewhere that the U.S. may be getting ready to take on these two countries once the Iraqi conflict is out of the way. The apprehension is that the Bush administration may be intent on picking up additional fights along the borders of Iraq. Washington has been quite insistent that it is aware of clandestine arms shipments to Iraq to assit the Saddam Hussein regime to hang on to power.
Last week the President, George W Bush, is said to have taken up with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, the involvement of a Russian firm in arms shipment to Iraq that included an assortment of weapons. The U.S. has been particularly worried that the Russian firm may have supplied jamming equipment for the GPS that could come in the way of precision guided missiles and munitions dropped by U.S. jets over Iraq. Moscow has flatly denied that any arms deal is taking place. Washington and Moscow continue to disagree on this.
LINK
"We've been in places of which you and I are totally unaware."
OK...prove that!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
When the War on Terror started, the President promised a different kind of war, and told us that there would be operations in many countries about which we would never know. I don't doubt it.
After war in Iraq, Bush to halt nuclear weapons program in Iran
WASHINGTON, Mar 31, 2003 (Knight Ridder Newspapers - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service via COMTEX) -- When war ends in Iraq, the Bush administration will give "extremely high priority" to halting a secret nuclear weapons program in neighboring Iran, a senior administration official said Monday.
John Bolton, the under secretary for arms control, joined National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in warning that the White House sees nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea as imminent threats.
"The estimate we have of how close the Iranians are to production of nuclear weapons grows closer each day," said Bolton, a leading hawk within the administration.
Both Bolton and Rice, in separate speeches to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, suggested that the Bush administration views the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as an initial response to a series of threats. However, neither of them suggested that Washington is pondering military action elsewhere.
President Bush last year tagged Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" that threatens world order, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has unnerved Iran and North Korea.
Rice defended the Bush administration's constant warnings that rogue regimes are acquiring evermore lethal weapons.
"Sometimes people think we're a little bit 'the-sky-is-falling, the-sky-is-falling' on these regimes that the president called the axis of evil," Rice said. She added, however, that recent evidence shows that "they certainly belong" on the list.
Rice voiced frustration that the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hasn't been more aggressive with Iran's nuclear program and suggested the need for shaking up the way weapons monitoring programs function.
"Once we have a better atmosphere after Iraq, one of the things we're going to have to look at is how the world gets itself better organized to deal with issues concerning weapons of mass destruction," Rice said.
In a separate presentation, Bolton said Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons "in a very comprehensive and sophisticated way." A U.N. team of nuclear inspectors that visited Iran Feb. 21-22 found a series of centrifuges to enrich uranium, a process critical to making nuclear weapons material, he said.
"The IAEA was stunned by the sophistication of the Iranian effort," Bolton said.
Bolton did not forecast when the administration believes Iran may be able to process fissile material for nuclear weapons, acknowledging that such estimates often prove inaccurate.
He said U.S. officials now view Iran and North Korea as equivalent threats, even amid evidence that North Korea may be only months from production of nuclear material for weapons.
"In the aftermath of Iraq, dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program will be of equal importance as dealing with the North Korean nuclear weapons program," Bolton said.
Bolton said a series of complicated emerging nuclear weapons threats might present themselves "simultaneously" to the White House once the Iraq campaign is over. "This is going to be a substantial challenge," he said.
Concern about North Korea's nuclear intentions soared last October, when U.S. envoys said Pyongyang admitted having a secret nuclear weapons program. Since then, North Korea has pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, an international agreement to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and eventually eliminate them, and appears on the brink of activating a nuclear facility that could generate enough material to make about a nuclear bomb a month, experts say.
North Korea says its nuclear program is defensive and designed to forestall U.S. attack.
The Bush administration has sought to deal with the crisis through diplomacy, worried that a spark might ignite a war that could kill hundreds of thousands, and perhaps a million, people within days. However, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate one-on-one with North Korea, as Pyongyang has demanded, and instead has said the talks must include other East Asian countries.
Bolton said U.S. officials hope that a decisive toppling of Saddam may give pause to other nations with secret weapons programs and "that some of these states will back off."
Bolton's remarks are the second alert on Iran from the administration in two weeks.
At a hearing March 19, John S. Wolf, the assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, told a Senate panel that Iran's nuclear program is a "bad-and-getting-worse" problem that "would be a profound danger to us."
Iran, which sits above huge deposits of oil and natural gas, announced in September that it intends to develop 6,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in the next 20 years.
It says its nuclear programs are only for peaceful purposes.
As a result of revelations by Iranian exile groups, however, Iran has acknowledged that it has a sophisticated gas centrifuge enrichment plant in Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran, and a heavy water plant in the nearby town of Arak.
Bolton also named Libya and Syria as nations with active efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. He said Libya is seeking "to obtain facilities critical for a complete nuclear fuel cycle" that would give it material for bombs. Syria, he added, has extensive stockpiles of sarin and VX nerve agent, and is also pursuing biological weapons.
FR thread
"However, neither of them suggested that Washington is pondering military action elsewhere.""Once we have a better atmosphere after Iraq, one of the things we're going to have to look at is how the world gets itself better organized to deal with issues concerning weapons of mass destruction," Rice said."
Translation: After having shown the UN and the world in general that we can, and will in fact act on our own if need be, we will give them one more opportunity to handle issues differently.
Prediction: Bush and Co. will expect the United Nations to deal with North Korea (a serious threat to the ChiCom) and Iran to take care of itself.
Of the two, Iran will be the easiest to solve, there have been ME experts on TV everywhere predicting the fall of the Ayatollahs in 2004.
Since we've landed in Iraq they're feeling left out.
There are two groups at stake in the Persian Gulf: The Arab producing regions and the non-arab producing regions. Before '73 they were separated by their hatred or lack of hatred of Israel. After the embargo everyone in OPEC agreed to let the voice of reason eminate from Saudi Arabia.
Look at it this way, how much of what we're dealing with right now came from small voices of Islam compared to the big voices from Egypt. Nasser created Qaddafi and later Pan-Arabism. Sadat started the Yom Kippur War because Egypt was broke.
The unifying foundation for unrest has always been Egypt centered on Israel. It was only after the Brits pulled out in '71 that the US was the target of hatred.
Islam is a vehicle for nationalism not the emination for it. And all of the countries there are currently on notice.
Have you noticed the buses filled with fanatics? Have you noticed Jordan and Saudi Arabia's defiance to Iraq? Have you noticed the cranking up of pressure on Syria?
The message is clear: Send your fanatics down to the valley of death and we'll deal with them. After this is over there will be new rules.
This really is an answer to the embargo and the power vacuum. Islam is a sideshow by petulant sectors of countries that have to continue trade despite their hatred of Israel.
And speaking of Israel. We've spilled plenty of blood to provide them with a model of how to handle fanatics. Let's hope they learn from it.
We don't intend to let them.
U.S. cites China, Israel, Saudi Arabia for poor human rights
Posted by Sabertooth
On 03/31/2003 6:10 PM PST with 160 comments
CNN ^ | March 31st, 2003 | Elise Labott
U.S. cites China, Israel, Saudi Arabia for poor human rights Palestinians, Colombia, Central Asian nations also criticized From Elise LabottCNN Powell: "Where human rights and freedoms flourish, terrorists and tyrants do not thrive and conflict and chaos do not reign." Story Tools WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Although noting some improvement, the State Department's annual human rights report once again accuses China of numerous, serious human rights abuses. Israel, Iraq and the Central Asian states were also accused of human rights abuses. While citing the release of several well-known Chinese dissidents, the report accused China of numerous "instances of extrajudicial killings, torture...
Rice Says Blueprint for Israel-Palestinian Settlement Is Not Negotiable
Posted by ejdrapes
On 03/31/2003 10:57 AM PST with 51 comments
AP ^ | March 31, 2003 | AP
Rice Says Blueprint for Israel-Palestinian Settlement Is Not Negotiable Washington (AP) - The White House said Monday its road map for setting up a Palestinian state by the end of 2005 is not negotiable and that Israel must "play its part" to pave the way. In a speech to a pro-Israel lobby group, Condoleezza Rice, who is President Bush's national security adviser, also called on all Arab governments to recognize Israel's right to exist and said democratic reforms within the Palestinian Authority were "extremely important." The road map, prepared jointly with the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, is...
Do you think they may have an issue or two with the US?
October 19, 2001
Washington -- Eminent Islamic scholars from North America, Europe, the Middle East and South Asia have rejected appeals from Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network for a "jihad," or holy war, against Americans.
The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association issued a joint statement October 17 that said, "Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people."
"Using the concept of Jihad to justify harming the innocent is contrary to the letter and spirit of Islam," the statement said. "We condemn any violence that springs from this misguided interpretation." CAIR said prominent Canadian Islamic scholars endorsed the statement.
The statement provided an in-depth explanation of the Arabic term "jihad," which is often misunderstood in non-Muslim countries. In its literal sense, the term means struggle and has three dimensions -- internal, societal and combative, the statement said. The internal dimension of jihad concerns the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self that obstruct attainment of virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness, the statement said. The societal sense of jihad involves the struggle against social injustice and efforts to create a community based on charity, respect, and equality, the statement said.
In its combative aspect, the concept of jihad can be invoked only for self-defense against aggression or to fight oppression and the struggle must be waged in a way that preserves the lives of innocents and avoids harm to the environment, the statement said.
"Moreover, this latter type of jihad can only be declared by a legitimate, recognized religious authority," the statement said.
In a related development, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty placed a full-page advertisement headlined in large block letters in the Washington Post October 17. Denouncing the deformation of Islam by Bin Laden and his group, the headline read, "Usama bin Laden hijacked four airplanes and a religion."
"Just as he must not be allowed to get away with the terrorist hijackings and cold-blooded murder of September 11, Usama bin Laden must not be allowed to get away with hijacking Islam and the good name of religion generally," the advertisement said.
The Becket Fund ad quoted seven statements by Islamic authorities in North America, Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, condemning Bin Laden's appeal.
"Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts," said Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Shaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulema, September 15.
"[the attacks] will be punished on the day of judgment," said Sheik Mohammed Sayyed al-Tantawi, leader of Egypt's great mosque, Al-Azhar, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal October 9.
"The terrorist acts...considered by Islamic law...[constitute] the crime of 'hirabah' (waging war against society)," read a fatwa, or Islamic legal opinion, issued by six Islamic scholars in the Middle East and North America on September 27.
The scholars were Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar), Judge Tariq al-Bishri (First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt), Dr. Muhammad S. al-Awa (Professor of Comparative Law and Shari'a, Egypt), Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat (Islamic Scholar, Syria), Fahmi Houaydi (Islamic Scholar, Egypt), and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alawani (Chairman, North America High Council).
"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime," Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London, was quoted as saying by Arab News on September 28.
"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people," Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of Pakistan, was quoted as saying in the New York Times, September 28.
"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in," Abdullah II, King of Jordan and descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, said as quoted in Middle East Times, September 28.
"These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human and moral values," the Organization of the Islamic Conference said in an official statement of the 56-nation organization at its emergency meeting in Doha, Qatar October 10".
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.
