Dear Mutafa Akyol: Respectfully I have to say the following. You have written,"We believe that there is no contradiction between religious and national identities. Any Muslim should be able to embrace the citizenship of any modern secular state while maintaining feelings of spiritual solidarity with the umma, the global Muslim community."
How can you justify Muslims to be citizen of a secular State and justify killing of Muslims (or people of any other religon)without out any provocation, because it is in the national interest. A Muslim living in a Muslim country finds his relgious and national interests go together, but that may not be always the case living in secular State.
2- You said"Supported by the Koran's affirmation that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), we cherish religious liberty."
Then do you also cherish the right of women in Turkey to wear Hijab and enjoy every other right that "modern" women, who denounce hijab, enjoy?
3- Your stand against anti-Semitism is commendable as Islam and Muslims have always been compassionate with Jews when they lived under Muslim rule (such as in Muslim Spain), but what about the anti-Islamic stand of many 'civlized' nations, where press is allowed to demonize and insult Islam and Muslims in the name freedom of speech. Is that commendable too? Please comment

Nice try! But unfortunately there are numerous passages in the koran argueing differently... Many muslims are intolerant and thus a threat for other societies, especially for the Jewish society. From my point of view it is impossible to cure the fanatic muslims from their hatred towards "non-believers". I wish it would be differently...

Dear Mustafa,

I thank you for this manifesto, I have read the German version in "Spiegel Online". I find it a hearty and wise statement to live together in beauty and piece in this world, regardless of personal beliefs. I find it further interesting that it could just be applied to catholics, protestants and other confessions, I think it is just valid for everybody.
I do not belief in a particular confession but in beauty, love, one-hearted and wholy people. I think those you find everywhere on this planet, in every relegion and in every country.

Thank you & Let us walk in beauty.

Karl

Dear Mustafa,

congratulations!

The "Muslim Manifesto Against Violence & Tyranny In The Name of Islam" is one of the most inspiring and actualy needed words I heard/read in the whole "clash of the cultures"-discussion.

For myself, I lived in some countries and I learnd to accept cultural and philosophical differeces between any individuals. I belive, and I think that the history is the best example, that violence will never get anything accepted. And we can't turn back the time to none-multiple-societies.

Now I'll hope you will find a way to force the Manifesto, and many advocates, specially in the muslims.

Anyday peace will succeed!

David

Hi,
with your "Muslim Manifesto"
you give hope to many people and you gave me a feeling of great respect about this way of understanding and living islam

Thank you for the hope and for this great picture of islam and its people (i am sure, many of them are thinking this way)

Stefan Raabe

Dear Mr. Akyol,

just now I have read the text, you have written with Zeyno Baran and feel the need to let you know that I am very glad and happy to read such lines!
As far as I have understood your text, I agree with everything, although I am not a Muslim one. But I could loose my anxiety of all these people, who are always talking about Islam and mean indeed completely different stuff.
You lines let me hope that also the Islam can go through, what the christian religion already has done, the enlightment!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THESE LINES!
Yeah, I am VERY, VERY thankful for that!

With heartly greetings from Cologne, Germany

Andreas Korn

Dear Mr. Akyol,

Your manifesto is very reassuring to a non Muslim such as me. I have no particular expertise in the Koran but I always thought that Muslims could think precisely as you and your associate so clearly and courageously declared recently.

So far we have heard only from those who brandish the Koran as an excuse for violence, as well as the actions of various organizations, including states, who condone and even encourage this attitude.

This highjacking of religion is disturbing because the religions have long been pillars of civility and sources of morality, and therefore valuable foundations of civilization. As such religions are precious, and deserve to be protected by state institutions instead of exploited by them.

Your manifesto will force those who advocate violence in the name of the Koran to try to justify their stand by waterver arguments they have to offer instead of perpetuating the implication that their attitude is somehow inevitable, or worse, universal!

Why should there be any reason why the Muslims cannot participate in the modern world, and bring their personal contributions to it? I salute your courage and your leadership.

God bless you! Dom.

Dear Mustafa Akyol,

thank you for your good work.
Your Manifesto is the step in the right direction, and thats is what we need to get in touch with the muslim community.
I hope that muslims who stay in the western countries will discuss it in their communities, or even in their mosques.

Peter from Düsseldorf, Germany

muslime

Dear Mr. Akyol,

i have read your so called manifesto in "der Spiegel". Though i agree with you in most of your points i would like to point out, that you obviously bow to the definition brought upon you as muslim from mostly non-muslims:

You don't define yourself as 'what am I', but 'what am I not'! This way you denounce violent protests, violence towards non-combatants, you don't want any theocracy (this is a very broad term, since most 'democracies' rely on religious scriptures or what is called the 'christian-jewish heritage' or would you call britain a theocracy?) and you don't like Antisemitism. But what are you? Why don't you write, that 'violence' to _protect_ ones own land or family is demanded!? Why don't you differentiate when talking about the 'sharia' and show for example that the 'sharia' was one of the things protecting non-muslims in the islamic state?

I would have liked to read a ballanced article. With this article i think you're just blaming 'the other' muslims without giving any explanation to what the moderate muslim might realisitically be. The 'players' of the media and politics game 'good muslim' - 'bad muslim' will thrive on this.

greetings,

Omar

Dear Mr. Bayunus,

Thanks for your comment.

Of course, I don't justify "killing of Muslims (or people of any other religon) without out any provocation". National interests are justified only if they are in line with basic human rights.

And, I of course denounce secular despotism. Pelase read this piece, my critique of Turkey's ban on the headscarf:

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2005/10/turkey_and_headscarf.php

And I of course denounce Islamophobia. I denounced the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad here:

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2006/02/clash_of_civilizations_over_euro_cartoons.php

Dear MR. Abo-Namous,

Thanks for your comment.

This piece was intended to show what Islam is not. Of course there are millons of other issues to be pointed, and we need to show what Islam is, too. But this was not the focus of this specific piece. I have addressed other issues in my other writings.

Best regards,

Mustafa Akyol

Dear Mr. Akyol:
I agree completely with your article. Since the 911 terrorist attacks I have argued that moderate Muslims must stand up against the fanatics that are trying to highjack the religion. Both Judaism and Christianity were violent in their earlier years. As they matured the mainstream philosophy of both religions became pacifist. It is now time for Islam, youngest of the three, to do the same. I hope more voices like yours will bring this message to Muslims worldwide.

Your approach is humanistic and modern but at odds with the Islamic doctrine.
This causes lots of people to have a cognitive dissonance between what is taught through Islam and "occidental values".
Lots of people are happy about your approach but their approach is quite naive and symptomatic of a lack of understandign of Islam.
As you pointed out in EARLY Islam the Qur'an ordered not to violently respond to mockery. But these are meccan suras, the tone in the ones that "came out" in Medina were quite different, very belligerant. I'm sure you know the ones like 9.29-30 5.33 etc etc. These ones are underscored by the Hadiths, in wich Mohamed clearly indicates that "Islam is there to dominate". Even the Sira contradicts your view: You talk of justice, but have you never heard of the fate of the last Yew tribe of the Qurayza (you find in the Qur'an)? and of what happened to two "mockers" of Mohamed like bint Marwan (in the Sira) and kab bin al-Ashraf (Bukhari)?
You know better than myself that there are contradicting suras (this is why you should follow the last ones, that let the early ones evaporate...yes yes...God contradicts itself or doesn't know the future!!...possible?) and that the exemple to be followed is the life of the profet...Qurayza and Marwan&al-Ashraf theach...
And not to annoy anyone, but this old story of 2.256 is always utilized by moderates muslims, but this is an abrogated sura.
So the problem is that you do not stand on ortodoxy while arguing this way.
Even the fact to compare Islam with the other abrahamic faiths is false. It cannot be the same God! bcs al-Ilah contradicts the God of the Yews and the evolution of the Revelation that you can find in the New Testament.
You might have good intentions but your ground is very very fragile, and this explains why the "jihadists" are fully utilizing the orthodox inputs coming from the Qur'an and the Hadits, while the counteroffensive is very rare and is based on no truth.
You should question your faith more and more, bcs your analisys stops at your good-will
Regards
echnaton

Saul Scheinbach
you are a little ignorant (that means "not knowing") about Judaism and Christianity.
You should read the OT and the NT and study a little bit of history, bcs
a) your analysis is false
b) you are making an equivalence between history itself and the "Revelation" of both faiths.
This shows your logical fallancy.
Your assumption is just: "oh Islam comes 600years later, so it has to develop"...but this misses the point. the type of message that has been revealed. It is like comparing a sheep with a wolf.
Studieren Sie bitte ein bisschen mehr!

Dear Echnaton,

Thanks for your comment. I had addressed your points before, here:

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2004/10/still_standing_for_islam_and_against_terrorism.php

Best regards,

M.A.

Hello i read your article,
It is noble from you to act the way you do, but –sorry for that- it is not convincing.

Ok, related to the whole story of the islamic conquest, of course it has not been as monolithic as sometimes it could have been portraied, but you cannnot take out the faith initiative behind, otherwise for example what happened in Otranto 1480 could not have been explained.
The very fact that you deny that “the Armenian genocide” is not an established historical fact (it has just been mutual killing!) tells me a lot about your approach (by the way, there are plenty of historial documents demonstrating this, and it will not help you by taking the opinions of Lewis (he is human, for some thesis he is right, for others he is quite wrong, even Chomsky was magistral in linguisitc but he’s apologetic of Pol Pot) or by saying that there were some troubles between Armenians/Kurds/Turks). By the way you know that without this aknowlegement Turchey can say good by to Europe…if it were just an opinion it would be strange for Europe to request this conditions wouldn’t it?

Let’s go to the hard facts however:
Of course Jihad does not mean only a military one. There are plenty of ways of doing jihad, even peaceful ones. The problem with your interpretatoin is that you say that Mohamed is your guide in terms of earthly behaviour, but you take away all his doings as reported in the Hadiths and in the Sira. This is not serious. You try to say that these hadiths are “old”, “might not be genuine” and “not trustworthy”. So you know what you are saying? Actually, you are destroying the whoole concept of Sunna! Even, you go further as Wahabism does.
It is really contradictory! You should not forget that without these hadiths, no islamic jurisprudence could exist, as the Qur’an by itself is not enough , and even contradictory, in its teaching.
You start assuming that you take the Qur’an as without any fault. But you are justifing yourself with your own arguments! This is a logical fallancy as you should know! Indeed, just bcs of these contradictions, errors (logical, historical, grammatical) that you sometimes can find even in the same surah, “late” scholars of Islam had to come with the law of abrogation. Otherwise, what the Qur’an says of itself (to be a clear message without contradictions, Q 4:82)) could be of no utilization. And without the Hadiths even the “clear” Qur’an could be of no confort. It is as if someone would say to you: I’m free of errors. Would you believe him just bcs he says that? (even if it would be God itself, don’t you need any proof of his saying?). Sorry for that, nothing personal: you see contradictions but you spell out exception/conciliation!
In the case of the hadits, indeed I would be perplexed if they would just talk about a perfect Mohamed, but as you know, there are terrifying stories inside, actually confirming that the probability of beeing true is quite high!
Just the fact that you (just your opinion) try to deny another genocide (that of the Quraiza), tells me that you might have some problems with genocides!
Regarding the fact of abrogated verses: actually you dismiss your own religious orthodoxy. Has not the very Qur’an always existed in heaven? Is this not part of Islam? And now you talk to read it in a context! I must admit, you are fabricating your own religion here!
But even assuming that you were right, let’s put the suras in the context:
Of course Mohammed was a very smart person, that could hide more and different traits of personality, but you make a big mistake here: even the biggest butchers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot till G. Hammer, were sometimes very very kind, polite and tender people. They could even be very “marketing” people. But this is not enough to judge a person. The gruelities are determinant! This explains why Muhamed was so kind during the first years of Da’wa! He had no means to be different. He could not! He was alone, nobody believed him etc etc. And this is why he has been so smart in letting the meccan people going on doing their business instead of beeing butchered by the arch enemies of Medina. After all, he was from an important Meccan tribe himself. But! If someone dared to be critical of him he had other meaning to let the people understand who were the boss: How is it possible that someone so smart like you close both eyes. Yes, indeed there were + elements in Mohamed, but there are as well horrific ones! Actually, when Muhammed had establishe his predominance over Arabia, very then he got an angry person, and revelations changed! Strage!
Actually Revelation should have been aggressive in the early days, while it was not accepted, not the other way roud, when it has been well established.
Exemples: the 70+ raides that he did? Mohammed’s wedding (rape!) of a Quraiza housewise, the same day that 700+ (her brothers, father and husband included!) had been killed (ok you don’t’ believe it, your opinion)!!! the raid against the Byzantines that never materialized (quite defensive isn’t it?...in fact Suarh 9/5…quite the last ones! The ones that determine as well the status of dhimmi!), the marriage of a 6years old girl while he was 54! Even the institutionalization of slave and rape of PoW by the same Qur’an!

And again, yoou make a methodologic error here: bcs you take implicitly opinions, hadits and suras of the Qur’an for propelling your position, while dismissing the same hadiths etc etc that show you the opposite (on what do you think for exemple, Lewis, all islamic scholars, even Esposito and the ex nun, and Kahleel Moh. Had their arguments based on?)

You are stranged by the fact that these are selectivly taken out of context. You might be right, but even if you put them into context it doesn’t help you! Taking some quotes by “sometimes” unknown professors doesn’t help much. You know I’ve studied in 5 universities, but that doesn’t mean that bcs of that I’m the king of the universe inknowledge (the opposite might be true). But I tell you something more: the professors I met were +/- quite biased politically/ideologically. So even taking out quotes from Lewis or other famous/infamous professors/schoolars etc etc doesn’t help much. I need your brain!!!

Last but not least. You are encouraging people to talk to their heart, and this is admirable, but the problem is that the only ones that take the Qur’an and the Sunna seriously are the “mischiefers” (or jihadists/salafists/wahabists/islamist as you want), while the way you are doing, actually, you take the very Qur’an not serious at all.

I suppose the statement about abrogation “is in fact based of crassest stupidity” by KM should be repeated by himself in face of al Tantawi, Qaradawi and the custodians of the mosques in La Mecca!!!

Greetings
echnaton

Echnaton,

[qoute]By the way you know that without this aknowlegement Turchey can say good by to Europe…if it were just an opinion it would be strange for Europe to request this conditions wouldn’t it?[/qoute]

Totally off-topic, and threatening; plus a bait.

I'll bite for the heck of it all the same.

Here's my abridged reply to such drivel:

There's likely to be no EU by then anyway. So, it is a mute point.

Secondly, there hasn't been an Armenian 'genocide' in these soils. It's been nearly 100 years and some waanabes still trying to establish it. Irrelevant and outdated.

[qoute]It is really contradictory! You should not forget that without these hadiths, no islamic jurisprudence could exist, as the Qur’an by itself is not enough , and even contradictory, in its teaching.[/qoute]

The issue is and has never been about what Kuran says or said.

No one would give a toss about that; the issue is the geography. That geography is where the energy (petrol and natural gas), critically necessary for US/EU and the rest of the world, is currently at.

A good reason is needed to occupy it.

Whoever demonizes the people in that part of the world sufficiently gets the grand prize in terms of justification of occupying that geography. And, then game over!

So, depending on what part of the world you live and/or what power you align your interest with, you can join in the chorus to demonize Islam (and hence the people living there) to help with the quest of justifying more examples of Iraq, or do or say something along the lines of preventing such a scenario.

Muzmin
you are off topic, and what you are saying is just your opinion. Respectable but nothing more.
there are no hard facts you are presenting.
You are right, it is (as well) about geography: almost everywhere where we have Islam there are some kind of problems, doesn't it tell you anything?
You have you never read a fatwa?! have you never read the justifications of "the true muslims"?...this is why you still think the Qur'an is not the topic here!
You are utilizing the same arguments like al-zawahiri: the occident is "stealing" the resources of Islam. But do you know another product wich costs (for extraction) 3.5USD/barrel, and is sold at about 63USD?This gives you a margin of +1700%!!! yes yes the occident is stealing!..oh you pooooor victim!

and about the EU: you made a logical fallancy: so if the EU will not exist anymore in some years why is Turkey trying to apply for?...
and for the genocide: you try to evade the historical facts...a genocide is a genocide even if it were 1000years ago...what kind of argument is this!!!
Turkey has a problem with its pride, real good and honest people admit their faults. THis makes them big. Everyone else is not a man but just a little mouse

Echnaton,

[quote]you are off topic, and what you are saying is just your opinion. Respectable but nothing more.[/quote]

The feeling is mutual, then.

[quote]there are no hard facts you are presenting. You are right, it is (as well) about geography: almost everywhere where we have Islam there are some kind of problems, doesn't it tell you anything?[/quote]

No, it doesn't. Not what it tells *you*, anyway.

It's only a problem when there's something to grab from.

Consider East Timor of Indonesia. Nicely bitten off from Indonesia by Australians (with a little more than a little help from the US) just because it had reserves of oil in there.

You name a place where there's a struggle, and one party (being representative of 'freedom') demonizes the other for being all sorts of baddest things, I'll show you what the actual motives are... Look at Venezuela. It's not Muslim by any measure, but their elected people are at the end of a barrel --gun barrel, not barrels of oil..

Why? The answer is, wait for it; Barrels of oil.

And, just to help highlight what's a threat to the 'West', let's take a brief look at Afgahnistan.

We [Turkey is amongst the troops in there, pimped by NATO] have invaded the place for what? That they were treating their own people bad, right?

What have we done so far? Installed a puppet government that is restricted to Kabul area, and are claiming Afghani girls can now go to school freeley. How many? We have no idea --some? certainly.

Did they have this problem under USSR rule, no. When did they begin to have that? When US-backed Taliban took over...

Oh, the irony.

And, for all the goodness of invasion, has there been a single acre reduction of opium agrigulture in Afghanistan. No. It has, in fact, reached record levels.

So, what good has come out of this?

Well, Afghanistan is a very strategic place to control the potential routes of oil and natural gas out of Central Asia.

This is the kind of humanitarian aspect of it all.

But, do please tell me more of how bad Muslims are or have been.

[quote]You have you never read a fatwa?! have you never read the justifications of "the true Muslims"?...this is why you still think the Qur'an is not the topic here![/quote]

We can turn this discussion into religious trivia if we want to. Or, rather, if you want to believe a fatwa is worth more than the paper it is written on...

But, it would be saner if you realized that almost every Tom, Dick and Harry (or with islamic-equivalent names) can issue a fatwa. Only those, from either camps (yourself included) will believe them.

Get this: there's no central authority in Islam. Period.

[quote]You are utilizing the same arguments like al-zawahiri: the occident is "stealing" the resources of Islam. But do you know another product wich costs (for extraction) 3.5USD/barrel, and is sold at about 63USD?This gives you a margin of +1700%!!! yes yes the occident is stealing!..oh you pooooor victim![/quote]

You misunderstood almost everything I said. I am not saying the west is exploiting the oil producers --though there can be that claim by looking at the figures of cost and sales price. The 'oil producers' themselves don't actually produce a thing. They are living on a piece of land that is abundant with a very desirable commodity.

All they are doing is charging the Seven Sisters (plus their siblings and off-springs) for the privilege of getting that stuff out of the ground.

So, in short, I don't really have sympathy for 'oil producers' --they are all mostly lazy idiots who have not done a good job with the oodles of cash they have already accumulated all these years. Just look at wealth distribution charts in those countries. Pathetic.

But, what it is, in actuality, is this: Global competition has heated up immensely; and old-time allies have now found the need to keep the others in check so that one remains superior.

There's not much else, other than petrol, that enables one side to keep all the others in check. You control the oil, and everyone else falls in line.

There's an unfortunately a couple of problems in this; There are people living in that geography, and the rhetoric from the past stands in the way of unadulterated invasion of these lands --you have to convince your own public that you're doing this in the name of good things (human rights, spreading democracy, rule of law etc.)..

We're at that stage.

[quote]and about the EU: you made a logical fallancy: so if the EU will not exist anymore in some years why is Turkey trying to apply for?...[/quote]

Internal politics mainly... We do have more than our fair share of gullibles here, and they (those gullibles) think life will be much nicer when we join the EU --i.e. powers of the old guard, the Jacobites, the Kemalists etc.-- will be kerbed.

Some politicians are playing that card --as long as there's the carrot of EU, the old guard are unable to put up much of a resistance.

[quote]and for the genocide: you try to evade the historical facts...a genocide is a genocide even if it were 1000years ago...what kind of argument is this!!![/quote]

A genocide is most evident at the time nearest the actual event. The farther you get from it, the murkier it gets. Do you think Jewish Genocide was concluded to have happened a hundred years after it happened. No, it was a there and then issue.

Whereas, with what you're saying, there has been more or less a century whereby none of that was established. BTW, we're talking about a time when Turkey was much much weaker --so, if the claim was correct it would have been immensely easier to force Turkey to accept the charge.

In short, this story is a nice one to keep on the table to threaten with but has no substance. The west should drop this --it's very much similar to Iraqi WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) allegations. It doesn't exist --and in the part that did exist, you'll find that your own grandparents colluded with it (again, much like WMD stuff).

[quote]Turkey has a problem with its pride, real good and honest people admit their faults. THis makes them big. Everyone else is not a man but just a little mouse[/quote]

This has nothing to do with pride --other than the pride that prevents you from accepting misallegations.

We have our own share of stupidity, incompetence etc., there's no doubt about it. But, a genocide is not amongst them.

“[I didn’t want to enter into this kind of discussion, here we are talking about Islam, but if you want to then ok…let’s start…just my impression before starting with all this…you are quite good with rethoric, but your writing is a mix of leftists and popular points of view…you can do much better!]”

Echnaton,
[quote]you are off topic, and what you are saying is just your opinion. Respectable but nothing more.[/quote]
The feeling is mutual, then.
[It seems to me that instead of discussing you are starting with a false premise: the “tu quoque” argument is not a sign of force of intellectus]
[quote]there are no hard facts you are presenting. You are right, it is (as well) about geography: almost everywhere where we have Islam there are some kind of problems, doesn't it tell you anything?[/quote]
No, it doesn't. Not what it tells *you*, anyway. [I see you have some problems in following logical arguments, but I’m interested to see yours]
It's only a problem when there's something to grab from.
Consider East Timor of Indonesia. Nicely bitten off from Indonesia by Australians (with a little more than a little help from the US) just because it had reserves of oil in there. [Yes yes of course, but you should remember that East Timor is Christian in a see of Islam, and during the last 10 years before independence 800’000+ East Timorian were butchered in a geocidical way. And indeed, of course there is a lot of oil….so why is Est Timor is still one of the most poor countries n the world…?]
You name a place where there's a struggle, and one party (being representative of 'freedom') demonizes the other for being all sorts of baddest things, I'll show you what the actual motives are... Look at Venezuela. It's not Muslim by any measure, but their elected people are at the end of a barrel --gun barrel, not barrels of oil..
Why? The answer is, wait for it; Barrels of oil….[you are a little confused…what do you want to show??...so let me guess…you want to let me believe that there is a lot of oil, but people is still poor bcs of their faith?…the problem is that yoou cannot make any distinction. A dictatorial regime could be –might be- the problem of all that?]
And, just to help highlight what's a threat to the 'West', let's take a brief look at Afgahnistan.
We [Turkey is amongst the troops in there, pimped by NATO] have invaded the place for what? That they were treating their own people bad, right?
What have we done so far? Installed a puppet government that is restricted to Kabul area, and are claiming Afghani girls can now go to school freeley. How many? We have no idea --some? certainly.
Did they have this problem under USSR rule [(???? Rule????...what kind of rule??,) no. When did they begin to have that? When US-backed Taliban took over... [Talibans have never been backed by he US, , the general “Mansour”, the lion of Panshir yes, but agin you miss the historical perspective…it was just in an anti-Russian strategy, might be you were too young to remember the cold war, and btw, Clinton will not stay in the annals of history bcs of his determination]
Oh, the irony.
And, for all the goodness of invasion, has there been a single acre reduction of opium agrigulture in Afghanistan. No. It has, in fact, reached record levels. [Oh my Goodness!, freedom is more difficult that dictatorship, didn’t you know that? And by the way, did you have official statistics during the talibans? Did you know that you could have been hanged while producing oppium during the talibans (while at the same time they were financing themslfs through it)? Now at least you get the fields burned down…but of course for you civilisationis an optional]
So, what good has come out of this? [So you prefer the talibans, with stoning, cutting of of hands, hanging of people listening to the radio and exploding historic and religious sites? Didn’t you ask yourself why the Russinas couldn’t conquer A. in more than 20 years, while the Americans succeded in 2 weeks?...might it be that they were seen as liberators?]
Well, Afghanistan is a very strategic place to control the potential routes of oil and natural gas out of Central Asia[.[ If it is so, please tell me the projects, the names of the pipelines….]
[You are talking as if 911 has newer been. Are you aware of what happens in the world? What changes the world and of international diplomacy and relationship?]
This is the kind of humanitarian aspect of it all. But, do please tell me more of how bad Muslims are or have been.
[quote]You have you never read a fatwa?! have you never read the justifications of "the true Muslims"?...this is why you still think the Qur'an is not the topic here![/quote]
We can turn this discussion into religious trivia [(trivial? Where are you living?)] if we want to. Or, rather, if you want to believe a fatwa is worth more than the paper it is written on... [(again: please tell this when you are during your hadij or while in the al-aznar university). It could be of no importance to me or you, but you miss the point: it is important to understand what happens around you!]
But, it would be saner if you realized that almost every Tom, Dick and Harry (or with islamic-equivalent names) can issue a fatwa. Only those, from either camps (yourself included) will believe them. [It seems you lack knowledge of Islam. First: not anyone can issue fatwas and second again and again you miss the point: it seems you are disconnected to the facts and to reality: you are joking!]
Get this: there's no central authority in Islam. Period. […wow what wunderful discovery!]
[quote]You are utilizing the same arguments like al-zawahiri: the occident is "stealing" the resources of Islam. But do you know another product wich costs (for extraction) 3.5USD/barrel, and is sold at about 63USD?This gives you a margin of +1700%!!! yes yes the occident is stealing!..oh you pooooor victim![/quote]
You misunderstood almost everything I said. I am not saying the west is exploiting the oil producers --though there can be that claim by looking at the figures of cost and sales price. The 'oil producers' themselves don't actually produce a thing. They are living on a piece of land that is abundant with a very desirable commodity.
All they are doing is charging the Seven Sisters (plus their siblings and off-springs) for the privilege of getting that stuff out of the ground.
So, in short, I don't really have sympathy for 'oil producers' --they are all mostly lazy idiots who have not done a good job with the oodles of cash they have already accumulated all these years. Just look at wealth distribution charts in those countries. Pathetic. [I fully agree withy you, and it will get worse]!
But, what it is, in actuality, is this: Global competition has heated up immensely; and old-time allies have now found the need to keep the others in check so that one remains superior.
There's not much else, other than petrol, that enables one side to keep all the others in check. You control the oil, and everyone else falls in line.
There's an unfortunately a couple of problems in this; There are people living in that geography, and the rhetoric from the past stands in the way of unadulterated invasion of these lands --you have to convince your own public that you're doing this in the name of good things (human rights, spreading democracy, rule of law etc.).. But this is exactly the point: with all that wealth the oil producing countries should have developed out of tiranny, into industrial production, research etc etc that leaves to freedom and democraty…but it doesn’t happen…guess why!!!
but of course the US is only after oil…so how do you explain the liberation of Kuwait? So how do you deal with a country that officially tells that they want to destroy another one? Do you have any guess?]
We're at that stage.
[quote]and about the EU: you made a logical fallancy: so if the EU will not exist anymore in some years why is Turkey trying to apply for?...[/quote]
Internal politics mainly... We do have more than our fair share of gullibles here, and they (those gullibles) think life will be much nicer when we join the EU --i.e. powers of the old guard, the Jacobites, the Kemalists etc.-- will be kerbed.
Some politicians are playing that card --as long as there's the carrot of EU, the old guard are unable to put up much of a resistance. [Is the islamic Erdogan one of that?]
[quote]and for the genocide: you try to evade the historical facts...a genocide is a genocide even if it were 1000years ago...what kind of argument is this!!![/quote]
A genocide is most evident at the time nearest the actual event. The farther you get from it, the murkier it gets. Do you think Jewish Genocide was concluded to have happened a hundred years after it happened. No, it was a there and then issue. [???]
Whereas, with what you're saying, there has been more or less a century whereby none of that was established. BTW, we're talking about a time when Turkey was much much weaker --so, if the claim was correct it would have been immensely easier to force Turkey to accept the charge. [Turkey has always rejected these allegations, but again, facts, historic documents etc are there speaking. The way, and when these arguments are utilized are another subject-interesting but not for this discussion-]
In short, this story is a nice one to keep on the table to threaten with but has no substance. The west should drop this --it's very much similar to Iraqi WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) allegations. It doesn't exist --and in the part that did exist, you'll find that your own grandparents colluded with it (again, much like WMD stuff). [It has nothing to do with threats. It is just human and just to accept historical fact. Nobody is telling that you are less worth bcs of that. Otherwise still nw half of the world should live in shame. Didn’t you ever prove the sensation of feeling free while confessing somehting?
And by the way, the WMD existed and everyone-informed- nows where they are: in Syria thanks to the Russians…you should as well read the latest transcripts form different commissions and intelligence sources. And again btw, befor the war was there anyone doubting that there were WMD? Even Hussein was telling and showing them. There are documents from the inspectors of the UN, didn’t you ever hear of the big scandal of the Atlanta branch of BNL? The nuclear reactor of Busher?...]
[quote]Turkey has a problem with its pride, real good and honest people admit their faults. THis makes them big. Everyone else is not a man but just a little mouse[/quote]
This has nothing to do with pride --other than the pride that prevents you from accepting misallegations. [This is just your opinion, if you present fact I’ll accepts, otherwise I keep my opinion and my humility]
We have our own share of stupidity, incompetence etc., there's no doubt about it. But, a genocide is not amongst them. [I presume you can sleep with that! I cannot with much less!]

Echnaton,

I am sorry. this forum does not let me blockquote you. So, I tried my best to distinguish what you wrote --which meant I had to remove portions carried over from previous conversation.

[quote]“[I didn’t want to enter into this kind of discussion, here we are talking about Islam, but if you want to then ok…let’s start…just my impression before starting with all this…you are quite good with rethoric, but your writing is a mix of leftists and popular points of view… you can do much better!]”[/quote]

Well, thank you. But, do I really need to do much better? No, not really; this, I believe, is more than sufficient.

And, BTW, I wouldn't call what you've just said labelling me, because you were frank to state it all at the beginning. Thing is, all the same, it's not very nice to see oneself boxed into this or the other category --unless, of course, I'd chosen to... But, hey, this is Internet.

[quote][quote]The feeling is mutual, then.[/quote]
It seems to me that instead of discussing you are starting with a false premise: the “tu quoque” argument is not a sign of force of intellectus][/quote]

Oh, I am sorry. But, hey, this isn't fair; I wasn't aware I needed to pass *your* test. Next time, please do warn me in good time.

[quote]Yes yes of course, but you should remember that East Timor is Christian in a see of Islam, and during the last 10 years before independence 800’000+ East Timorian were butchered in a geocidical way. And indeed, of course there is a lot of oil….so why is Est Timor is still one of the most poor countries n the world…?[/quote]

Do you really need *me* to tell you that the /independence/ they /won/ wasn't theirs to keep? This would be most unexpected to come from someone who makes a point in seasoning a reply with words like intelligence etc...

BTW, isn't that ironic that genocide only happens to certain selected people.. Blacks in South Africa doesn't count, Zulus dont, Kenya doesn't.. But, only some do..

[quote]you are a little confused… what do you want to show??...so let me guess… you want to let me believe that there is a lot of oil, but people is still poor bcs of their faith?…[/quote]

Well, we're both a little confused --see East Timorian poverty issue above. The povery bit has nothing to do with faith.

[quote]the problem is that yoou cannot make any distinction. A dictatorial regime could be –might be- the problem of all that?[/quote]

Funny thing is that dictatorship.. comes under various disguises.

I know a lot of people who claim Dubya (as they call him) a dictator.. And, yes, they would agree with you --being a problem that is.

[quote](???? Rule????...what kind of rule??[/quote]

Whatever rule it was.. or almost as much rule as there's right now. Remember, Kabul area is what the current one covers anyway.

[quote]Talibans have never been backed by he US, the general “Mansour”, the lion of Panshir yes, but agin you miss the historical perspective…it was just in an anti-Russian strategy, might be you were too young to remember the cold war, and btw, Clinton will not stay in the annals of history bcs of his determination[/quote]

I would humbly claim that I do have a historical perspective, and that there can be artifacts of certain things you might have done in the past (thinking it would be the right thing to do) which come back and haunt you later.

Taliban is one of them. US backed anything that remotely resembled or claimed to have anything to do with islam in Afghanistan (and elsewhere); and then, when things changed. they were claimed to be bastards of someone else. [a reference to Gucci Guerillas would be nice here too, in the context of Iraq, but I have time constraints]

Anyway, historical perspective should not cause amnesia --worse still would be being selective at it.

[quote]Oh my Goodness!, freedom is more difficult that dictatorship, didn’t you know that? And by the way, did you have official statistics during the talibans? Did you know that you could have been hanged while producing oppium during the talibans (while at the same time they were financing themslfs through it)? Now at least you get the fields burned down…but of course for you civilisationis an optional[/quote]

Cheapshot #1.

No, civilisation is not optional for me. But, I wouldn't have you to define what it should be either.

Talking about using opium money to finance things? Why hasn't there been any measures to stop the trade? Who's controlling it now? Bunch of tribesmen whose backs of camels aren't worth a missile?

[quote]So you prefer the talibans, with stoning, cutting of of hands, hanging of people listening to the radio and exploding historic and religious sites?[/quote]

Cheapshot #2.

I did not create Taliban. Ask that question to whomever created it.

1) Create a monster
2) Let it terrorize everthing that moves
3) Go kill that monster
4) ... [expect everyone else to heroworship you]

Come now..

[quote]Didn’t you ask yourself why the Russinas couldn’t conquer A. in more than 20 years, while the Americans succeded in 2 weeks?...might it be that they were seen as liberators?[/quote]

No, of course i didn't ask that question --I have never felt the need to think why the Russians have failed this or that. it's their problem. And, incidentally, Russions controlled almost the same potion of Afghanistan as the new comers do now. There must be something nice and easy about Kabul area...

[quote]If it is so, please tell me the projects, the names of the pipelines….[quote]

Haven't heard of Russian-Chinese pipeline project?

[quote]You are talking as if 911 has newer been. Are you aware of what happens in the world? What changes the world and of international diplomacy and relationship?[/quote]

Perhaps not. Would you care to enlighten.

[quote](trivial? Where are you living?)[/quote]

Under a rock, where else.. Where do you think? :-)

[quote]again: please tell this when you are during your hadij or while in the al-aznar university. It could be of no importance to me or you, but you miss the point: it is important to understand what happens around you![/quote]

Yes, it is important to understand what happens around you. But, there's the catch: How much of it all is force-fed to you?

[quote]It seems you lack knowledge of Islam. First: not anyone can issue fatwas and second again and again you miss the point: it seems you are disconnected to the facts and to reality: you are joking![/quote]

Neither. A fatwa is an opinion aired by a religious /authority/. Now, what makes someone a religious authority? Anyones guess.. His (in very very rare cases, her) followers. Which means, that authority is strictly limited to that isolated crowd. Full stop.

[quote]I fully agree withy you, and it will get worse]![/quote]

{on the topic of pathetic nature of wealth distribution in 'oil producing' countries} yes, it *will* get worse. They have wasted all that wealth on Ferraris, jets and gamling. their poor is poorer than Sub-Sharans. What a waste!

And, no, the fact that their elites did a lousy job does not grant you moral high ground to invade and kill them and call it collateral damage.

[quote]But this is exactly the point: with all that wealth the oil producing countries should have developed out of tiranny, into industrial production, research etc etc that leaves to freedom and democraty…but it doesn’t happen…guess why!!![/quote]

Well, we could spend countless hours trying to explain why it hasn't happened. But, the reality is it hasn't happened. I wouldn't blame their JoeSixPacks (or their equivalent) for what hasn't happened. They have had lousy elites who simply bribed themselves.

[quote]but of course the US is only after oil…so how do you explain the liberation of Kuwait?[/quote]

Let's not go into 'liberation of Kuwait'..

[quote]So how do you deal with a country that officially tells that they want to destroy another one? Do you have any guess?[/quote]

First, you tell them it is fine. Then, once they do something along those lines, you announce them evil and invade them. or, isn't this how Kuwait was liberated? ;-)

[quote]Is the islamic Erdogan one of that?[/quote]

I am not sure how Islamic he is, but yes, I'd say both his cabinet and the big money in TR both like it that way. Naturally, after Poland, Turkey would also be a nice wedge into EU --which doesn't make US too unhappy either.

[quote]Turkey has always rejected these allegations, but again, facts, historic documents etc are there speaking. The way, and when these arguments are utilized are another subject-interesting but not for this discussion-[/quote]

Sure always rejected them. It is one of those rare things we have been consistent over the years. IMHO, rightfully so.

[quote]It has nothing to do with threats. It is just human and just to accept historical fact. Nobody is telling that you are less worth bcs of that. Otherwise still nw half of the world should live in shame.[/quote]

Well... I do remeber times when Amnesty International's reports condemned Turkey for maltreatment of prisoners and it was always a big issue {rightfully so}, but when US has had Guantanamo going for so long, and running prisons right in the heart of EU, in oceangoing vessels, in unnamed places all around the world, I don't hear any significant voices condemning and pressuring them.. Talk about living in shame..

[quote]Didn’t you ever prove the sensation of feeling free while confessing somehting?[/quote]

Sure, I would like to confess. But, I can only confess crimes and wrongdoings *I* have done. Not, things like assasinating John F Kennedy just because it would be so convenient for someoneelse.

[quote]And by the way, the WMD existed and everyone-informed- nows where they are[/quote]

Right. And the proof is those who sold them kept copies of invoices an dispatch notes... Why didn't I think of it?

[quote]in Syria thanks to the Russians…you should as well read the latest transcripts form different commissions and intelligence sources.[/quote]

I am not privvy to such information, and I dont put much credibility on them either. Just look at UK's intelligence stance on before and after Operation KillThemAll.

It has been so many years (how many by now?) and all that has come out of it is zilch, nil, nada.

[quote]And again btw, befor the war was there anyone doubting that there were WMD? Even Hussein was telling and showing them. There are documents from the inspectors of the UN, didn’t you ever hear of the big scandal of the Atlanta branch of BNL? The nuclear reactor of Busher?...[quote]

Well.. where are they now? I mean we're living in an age that the spy satellites can determine the color of my eyes, but can not show where they were taken to. Get real. please.

[quote]This is just your opinion, if you present fact I’ll accepts, otherwise I keep my opinion and my humility[/quote]

Of course, it is my opinion. And, just my opinion too. I am not out to force you to believe this or the other.

[quote]I presume you can sleep with that! I cannot with much less![/quote]

I have named a few above. If you can sleep with all that (and there's a lot more I didn't have time to enumerate), you have either nothing to complain about or are very selective in terms of what disturbs you.

Dear Muzmin and Echleton,

Until I read some of your arguments, I did not subscribe the view that "when there is a greater than 20 gap in IQ's the communication is impossible".

Dear Mr. Akyol,

I do not want to carry on the exchange we had on the wisdom of the "manifesto" here, bur after having read most of the comments, I can't help but ask: Do you still insist that it was a good idea?

Sincerely,
Bekir L. Yildirim

I read your manifesto with interest. However, why do you and Ms. Baran insist on labelling yourself as Muslims - wouldn't it be better for you to say that from an ideological perspective you are secular, though you were born in Muslim families. This would be more accurate, rather than trying to generate a version of Islam that you feel concords with your secular beliefs.

Little of what you say is supported by most Muslim thinkers.

If this was such a wide initiative, how come it is only supported by you, and the apologist for the Uzbek regime, Baran?

Dear Mr. Sinclair,

You are totally wrong about my religious identity. I am in no way a secular person. I am a serious believer of Islam. My Islamic views might not be the same with some other Muslim thinkers; this just means that we have different interpretations of Islam.

Mustafa Akyol

I recently attended a symposium organised by the Islamic group Hizb al-Tahrir. They presented an interesting vision of the Caliphate and how it will protect women and religious minorities. They also condemn violence against non-combatants and terrorist atrocities, and reject the tyranny of certain rulers. They say that the Caliph will be elected and accountable. They talk of an independent judiciary and the existence of political parties to call the regime to account. I was interested to know your views on this and whether it is consistent with the Muslim Manifesto?

Also, why do you use the term "moderates" - this term has no legal definition or commonly understood meaning? One person's extremist is another person's moderate.

Arthur,

[quote]I recently attended a symposium organised by the Islamic group Hizb al-Tahrir.[/quote]

Intetresting connections :-) Care to give links for proceedings of that symposium?

[quote]They presented an interesting vision of the Caliphate and how it will protect women and religious minorities. They also condemn violence against non-combatants and terrorist atrocities, and reject the tyranny of certain rulers. They say that the Caliph will be elected and accountable. They talk of an independent judiciary and the existence of political parties to call the regime to account.[/quote]

Good luck to all who think they can get up and (re-)establish an authority of that sort.. but, if historical continuity is anything to go by, one could hardly point to Hizb al-Tahrir to reintroduce such a post.

[quote]I was interested to know your views on this and whether it is consistent with the Muslim Manifesto?[/quote]

Last time I checked, there was no election won by a couple of bright young individuals to draft such a text.

There is no 'the Muslim Manifesto'. Period.

[quote]Also, why do you use the term "moderates" - this term has no legal definition or commonly understood meaning?[/quote]

I guess it is probably becuse it sounds nicer --just like 'civilized people' does.

[quote]One person's extremist is another person's moderate.[/quote]

Precisely.

Dear Mr. Akyol,

I have been checking the list of signers (at http://muslimmanifesto.org/list.html) from time to time, but remain disapointed that, after more than three weeks, apparently nobody has supported your good sentiments.

Has anybody signed the Manifesto? Do you still intend to populate the signatories page?

Islam and technology - Is Islam anti-technology?

Living in a material world

One confusion which arises amongst some people is that how, on the one hand democracy, capitalism and the policies of the west are kufr and yet we still use their technologies such as the internet, mobile phones and cars. Is this not haram? Additionally, some condemn the Khilafah as being regressive or anti-technological. Former US assistant secretary of state, James Rubin said in an interview “Muslim resentment of the West will evaporate when they are free and fed”, he continued,“… Do you really want to live in Bin Laden Land, a Stone Age Islamic caliphate with no rights, no economy and no future? I am confident the answer will be no.” Is James Rubin right, or does Islam have something to say on the ‘technological revolution?’

There is a difference between haDarah (civilisation) and madaniyyah (material progress). Material objects arising from the haDarah are specific to a civilisation and define a particular outlook towards life. Hence a statue such as those being worshipped by the Quraysh, or in contemporary times such as those being worshipped by Hindu’s, epitomise something which represents a particular ideological viewpoint. To make use of these objects which represent a foreign haDarah to the Islamic one is haram as it contradicts the Islamic outlook on life.

However, madaniyyah is not specific to any civilisation and is universal. Material aspects arising from science and its advancement or from industry and its evolution are not specific to any particular civilisation or ideology. Consequently mobile phones, laptops and the internet all stem from scientific enquiry which is universal to man and not limited to the west alone. Hence it is wrong to equate technology or science as something which may be ‘western’ or ‘kufr.’

This distinction should be very clear and at the forefront of our minds. Whilst we may adopt from the western madaniyyah those things which arise from science, industry etc. we must never adopt from her haDarah.

Hence using a car to go and buy a computer is allowed whilst bringing home a statue of an idol to adorn pride of place on your mantelpiece is not. In the first instance a computer does not represent any particular ideological outlook or view whilst in the later example a statue typifies shirk – something which runs totally counter to the Islamic ‘aqeedah.

A final point worth reflecting on is that, madaniyyah alone is no adequate benchmark by which to assess any civilisation. Each and every civilisation can expect to make material progress over time. Consequently penicillin could have just as easily been discovered in China or Nigeria or Bahrain as it was in the west. Unfortunately some Muslims have become smitten with the western madaniyyah and have consequently condemned Islam as being ‘backward’ or anti-technological. Clearly this is not the case and Islam does not oppose technology or industry as such. When we examine the western civilisation we must pull back from examining her madaniyyah and instead, assess the intellectual basis of her civilisation; capitalism, secularism and freedom.

Shiraz Maher

Dear Mustafa Akyol,

I agree with Steve that there are so little support to the manifesto. I think this is because nobody aware of it. Is it right? What's your plan? I'm here to support you anyway.

With my best regards,