Ana McDonald: Shared beliefs... [An air bag is provided in the seat pocket in front of you]

"We should try to make an imaginative effort to understand what radical Islam was trying to do." -Karen Armstrong, 'Holy War'

As unlikely, incredible and totally illogical [yes, it is] as it sounds, radical Muslim leaders like Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and yes, even Saddam Hussein strive for an ideal that Americans can endorse: social justice. [you mean like torturing your own citizens for saying bad things about you?] "The bedrock message of the Koran is that Muslims must build a just and decent society, in which poor and vulnerable people are treated with respect,"explains noted religious historian Karen Armstrong in a Washington Post column.

Here is our most cherished democratic standard — equality [it is?]— yet it predates us by 1,400 years. Indeed, American democracy owes much to Islamic example. Ali ibn Talib, grandson of the prophet Mohammed and the fourth and last Rightly Guided Caliph, gave his people the power to "correct him without fear," says Armstong in "Holy War," her 1988 analysis of the Middle East. "The Caliph must be controlled by both Islam and the umma (the community)." Ali's position is strongly aligned with our own belief that political leaders get their power from the community that put them into office — and can take them out.

The Rightly Guided Caliphs, ancient spiritual and political leaders, set the standard. A good Muslim leader's decisions must be made in consultation with others, never alone or arbitrarily. Here we see the democratic ideal foreshadowed. Indeed, our entire system of checks and balances is an elaborate manifestation of this ancient display of common sense. [no it isn't you silly person].

A good Islamic leader will remain accessible to the people. Ordinary citizens should be able to voice their opinions and concerns.[They can, numbnuts] Reminds me of the ease with which modern Americans pick up a phone and speak with governmental representatives — maybe not the senator himself, but a member of the senator's staff stands ready to listen and help.

Now if these were all the attributes of the Rightly Guided leaders, the Arab countries might love us. But on one key point, we differ dramatically. The Islamic ideal requires leaders to live modestly, as the people do. [You mean like Saddam, with his 9 palaces, or Arafat and Osama with their millions?? Puh-leeese!] Their leaders — the good ones — take personal responsibility for the poor and ensure that wealth is fairly distributed.[Where?]

But our wealthy live quite differently than our poor [umm, duh] , so Muslims judge us immoral. [Yes rich people with boats is so much more immoral than beheading seven year olds] On the international scene, where entire countries live with disease and famine that we would never tolerate here, the gap is even more vicious. So when radical Islam attacks America, they are trying to attack social injustice. [what are you smoking lady?]

In the process, they violate their own value system. When bin Laden and Arafat recruit suicidal men to destroy innocent lives, when Saddam resists the just call for weapons inspections that could avert a nuclear disaster, they have forgotten that a good Islamic leader must be merciful and compassionate. By Islamic definitions, they are not good leaders. [There's a blinding flash of the obvious]

Yet they are followed by good people — deeply confused, but still good. And when we negotiate with these good people, we must remember that our lifestyle has much in common with their ideals. By building on similarities, we may yet avoid war. [Probably the most muddle-headed paragraph I've read in awhile]

And so Secretary of State Colin Powell is correct in insisting that the United States obtain U.N. endorsement for military action in Iraq. His reasons are no doubt complex and nuanced. Mine is simple. A good leader — democratic or Islamic — does not rule alone or arbitrarily. A good leader consults with others before making decisions. By submitting ourselves to the wisdom of the international community [oh please], America will remain a good leader in the best international tradition.

Ana McDonald believes that a reluctant warrior is the best leader of all. Contact her at ana@sanmarcos.net.

Actually, Karen Armstrong is a very knowledgeable and gifted writer on Religion and the Mideast, specifically Islam.

Her faults lie in the fact that she concentrates more on the original "intent" of Muhammad, versus the reality of what he himself instituted, and how Islam was corrupted completely in succeeding generations.

There are some valid points here though - Islam offered a political voice for women (although limited) - vs. being property in Christendom; all had some guaranteed rights regardless of rank vs. none in the West; and the care and attention to the poor and needy was and is a key goal of Muhaamad's teachings.

But, as is easy to see from even a cursory check of Muslim countries, none of this original "intent" was ever truely put into practice.

That is why it is very easy for me to dismiss the modern Islamic "theologians" seen on TV and in the press. They spout the same lies used in the 7th century to defend the barbarism of their religion.

Islam offered a political voice for women (although limited) - vs. being property in Christendom; all had some guaranteed rights regardless of rank vs. none in the West

Wow. This couldn't be more erroneous.

Women considered property in Christendom - an amazingly ignorant statement.

Not to mention that in Islam you can literally purchase a woman for cash - yet you ridiculously claim that Christianity considers women property.

Islam guaranteed all people rights? Huh? Nonbelievers have literally no rights of any kind in Islam. They can't own land, inherit property, marry a Muslim, etc.

What planet do you live on?

Christianity guaranteed rights for all people - viz. the Code of Justinian, the very first Christian law code.

The Code of Justinian may have put on paper ~560 the desire to reformulate Roman law, but what I said still stands - your crude remarks not withstanding.

Islam offered some very real legal advantages for common people and women versus Christendom in Muhammad's time, especially for women.

They were not chattel, not bound by marriage requirements, could own personal property and wealth, sue for divorce, share in the inheritance from one's father when brothers survived, etc. - all things NOT allowed in Christendom.

Perhaps you should think before you write. Or at least go read some more.

Christian women were and are not chattel, as St. Paul and every Christian law code makes plain. In Islam women are sometimes chattel and sometimes not, as the Koran and Shari'a law make plain.

In Christianity both men and women were bound by marriage requirements and they were both forbidden divorce - there is no discrimination here, merely the evidence that Christians hold marriage in higher esteem than Islam does. In no Christian marriage is a woman compelled, at her husband's pleasure, to share her marriage bed with three others.

Christian women could certainly inherit and own property. The history of Western Europe would have been quite different had this not been the case.

I notice you completely dismiss the Justinian Code with these ridiculous words: The Code of Justinian may have put on paper ~560 the desire to reformulate Roman law, but what I said still stands What you said certainly does NOT stand, since the existence of Justinian's Code completely refutes all the lies you've told.

There is nothing in the New Testament which forbids women from inheriting or owning property. There is nothing in the New Testament which indicates that women can be bought and sold as property. There is nothing in the Canons of the early Church which even suggest such rules or practices. When the Church finally emerged from the Roman yoke and formulated its own law code, that of Justinian, these practices you speak of are still not in evidence.

Your dismissive attitude notwithstanding you have no evidence to support your fantastical claims.

You tell me to "read some more" - you've apparently read nothing. Not the New Testament. Not the Koran. Not any account of Shari'a. Not the Canons. Not the Code of Justinian. Not any account of Christian or Islamic history that hasn't been strained through an intellectually bankrupt, politically corrected lens.

Just to clarify:

In Justinian's Code -

Women can own property.

Women can purchase property.

All children are entitled to a share in a deceased parent's legacy.

Women can sign contracts and witness contracts.

Women can make wills and leave their property to whomever they choose.

Women can act as witnesses in full standing in courts of law.

According to Sharia law the inheritance of a male child is to be twice that given to a female child.

According to Sharia law, women are not considered to be full witnesses in a court of law and are not considered to be full witnesses to contracts.

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.