Top Saudi Cleric Assails Terrorists

AP/YAHOO News ^ | February 1, 2004 | RAWYA RAGEH

[swarthyguy]

It is Saudi Arabia that should be gone.

BUMP!

[XBob]

4 - "I'm never sure that these clerics are broadly denouncing all terrorism, or just commenting that it is wrong to kill muslims, and to be more careful. "

Read it again - the title is wrong - it pretty clearly says in the story - 'Terrorists, don't kill Muslims, particularly in Saudi Arabia.' And don't kill infadels in Saudi, who are guests (the westerners running their oil industry).

It totally fails to address/condemn killing non-muslims outside of Saudi Arabia.

[XBob]

78 - " AS we know, most muslims don't even read the Koran. "

This is something that is not well known - that muslims rarely read the koran. Most muslims can't read, period.

They would be much more aware of its ferocity if they did.

The mullas read it, and preach it to them.

[nuconvert]

That's exactly right.

[risk]

So LG, I thought you came from Cuba? Now you're not an immigrant? I'm not following you. Also, my dictionary states that Latinos are from the Spanish-speaking cultures. Are you not proud to admit that now? I don't see any religion except Islam in my discussions, so I'm not sure where you get the religious fanaticism. You seem fanatical about defending Islam, so maybe that's where you're getting confused. Anyway, I would call an Anglo-Saxon native born American a traitor for making some of the arguments you have as well, so don't feel singled out by any means! And last I checked, treason had to do with undermining national security, which is what I'm arguing that your position takes. I'm free to do that. You're free to defend your position. I'm not advocating anything but the label of your positions as dangerous, yet you get all excited about free speech. Freedom comes with responsibilities, and you should be ready to accept the responses your fellow Americans make when you advocate something like the trust and acceptance of Islam as a peaceful religion. I don't think it is, lots of FReepers don't think it is, and you haven't proven to us otherwise. Given the potential dangers involved, it seems the onus of proof is on you. Go for it! You're not being censored here, so prove to us the ROP thesis. You can't, because if it were a ROP, its true defenders would ensure that. But keep trying... Try, try, try. Meanwhile, your arguments seem to persuade others of quite an opposite conclusion.

About Cuba, if you really are from Cuba as you say, and now I'm starting to question that, then if you had serious cojones as you claim you do, then why didn't you work to overthrow Castro instead of coming here to beleager us with your lectures on how to be good Americans?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This guy'll be dead before the month is out.

[risk]

pinging the right American this time :)

[nuconvert]

LOL!!!

You have no idea who or what you're talking about.

LOL!!

[nuconvert]

Very Good, Luis.

I applaud you.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So LG, I thought you came from Cuba? Now you're not an immigrant?"

I am a citizen, I WAS an immigrant.

"Also, my dictionary states that Latinos are from the Spanish-speaking cultures."

La·ti·no
(click to hear the word) (l-tn, l-, lä-)
n. pl. La·ti·nos

1. A Latin American.
2. A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States. See Usage Note at Hispanic.

Cuba is in the Caribbean, not in Latin America. Get a better dictionary.

"You seem fanatical about defending Islam."

Bullshit, to you anyone that's not virulently attacking all Muslims is a "Muslim apologist"...so much like Muslim extremists that it's scary.

"Anyway, I would call an Anglo-Saxon native born American a traitor for making some of the arguments you have as well, so don't feel singled out by any means!"

That only point to the fact that you haven't a clue about what the Constitution says about the crime of treason.

United States Constitution. Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Like the extreme Muslims that you mirror, now you want to declare Free Speech to be treason and punish it with the most severe punishment you can think of.

My position strengthens national security by allowing us to keep our eyes trained on the real enemies, and avoiding the idea of fighting an idea.

Our troops are busy hunting down terrorist extremists, and our government is busy shutting down their financing.

You would escalate this conflict beyond manageability...you are the enemy like all extremists are the enemy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It is Saudi Arabia that should be gone."

That's the head of the serpent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...then why didn't you work to overthrow Castro instead of coming here to beleager us with your lectures on how to be good Americans?"

Because it's difficult for ten year-olds to stage a military coup.

[nuconvert]

Oh, shoot! I'm sorry again.

Coming right up............

[XBob]

137 - ""Q'uran" is not "PC sp" like you say. It's the wrong spelling, but Qur'an is correct."

Neither is right/wrong. Koran is Arabic - there is no correct English spelling - only phoentic sortof equivalents. We don't have ways in Englsh to represent the exact Arabic sounds. (The same for many non-Roman languages, such as Hindi, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, etc.

All are 'approximations'.

[XBob]

224-" shampane" for "champagne" or "boorreeto" for "burrito" do we?

Not a fair comparison as those words are already in the Latin alphabet in their native language. It would be interesting to see how the Turks transliterate Arabic."

Interesting point, especially since modern Turkish language was itself transliterated only recently - in the 1920's-30's.

In addition, written arabic is not the same as spoken arabic. Written arabic is 'classical' arabic from the days of the koran, and has not been allowed to change appreciably.

[nuconvert]

Tough questions, Eastbound.

Yes, extremists would object. You bring up a very important point. It seems they would ignore any modernization. While the rest of the faith moved on, the radical extremists would be left behind. Trying to predict the affect of the outcome of modernizing the Koran is impossible.
I will tell you, that every muslim practices his faith on his own, as he chooses. Clerics are there to answer questions. There is no requirement to go to mosque. You can be a "good" muslim and never step foot inside a mosque. Your religion, your practices, your faith are between you and God. You're on your own, unless you want or need some explanations, councelling or questions answered or you feel you want or need to go to mosque.
That being said, I would not think, though I do not know, that excommunication is really a possiblity. It would seem that would require a major new decision within the religion. Though as I said, I could be wrong.

Yes, moderate clerics can make fatwahs. Their fatwahs would be obeyed by their followers. I see no reason why they couldn't decide to condemn terrorist acts, however since it isn't the moderates committing these acts, that wouldn't solve much. Could they ask people not to associate with terrorists? I suppose. But it seems that would make for warring factions within the religion. That's a serious undertaking. It might be what needs to happen, but I'm sure they'd like to come up with another solution. No one wants their religion to be torn apart.

There's a group of muslims that have been left out of the discussion. Those are secular muslims. People outside the Islamic faith would like to believe that you can't call yourself a muslim unless you pay strict adherence to the Koran. This would be argued by the majority of muslims who are moderate or secular. Doesn't seem anyone has the right to tell a muslim whether he/she is a "real" muslim or not.
Arrogant, to say the least.

The Islamic majority needs to take a stand against terrorism. Some are. It's happening a lot more slowly than we'd like. You'll notice a couple of people have commented that this cleric in the article will be killed for saying what he has. That's the Big problem. People are afraid to go along with the clerics who speak out. And fear is what terrorism is about. Also, keep in mind, that the media doesn't report these stories very often. So, just because you aren't hearing about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I'm sorry it took me so long to write back. I hope I've helped you understand a little more. I'm not an expert on this subject. Just trying my best to tell you what I know.

[nuconvert]

LOL!!

[Eastbound]

Thanks for your reply. Bump for later.

[risk]

So you're not satisfied with the politically incorrect 1913 Webster's definition of Latino I take it? I prefer that definition myself. But as I said, it makes no difference. I understand the definition of treason, and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" may fit you well. It all depends on what the definition of enemy is, and that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?

Because it's difficult for ten year-olds to stage a military coup.

So I take it you're not very interested in going back to nudge your country in the right direction, as you prefer to keep us on the straight and narrow path, right?

you are the enemy like all extremists are the enemy.

I find this response helps clarify why you've gotten yourself into trouble on this issue. There are a range of American responses to terrorism. Mine is somewhat more aggressive than yours. You've exaggerated repeatedly how much more it is -- all for the sake of making your point. However, if you are wrong and I am right, then we could be in a much worse situation if we listen to your perspective and follow it, don't you agree? I've asked you again and again to answer one simple question: when would you give up your illusions? What would it take? I can't conceive of any circumstances under which you would cease to uphold your ideals.

That seems dangerous to me. It is your unwillingness to consider the possibility that you could be wrong that endangers us. And we are already in danger, no matter what we say or do.

You also have been unwilling to answer my question about Japan and Germany. Do you think that what we did there to win WWII was unjustified, that although we killed innocent Christians in both cases that it was unforgivable? From your posts, I can interpret that you do.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We're done, for good this time, and I'll leave you with the most glaring posted example of your bigotry:

"So I take it you're not very interested in going back to nudge your country in the right direction."

THIS is my country.