Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality ~ John Esposito ~ Export

~~ Welcome ~~
	What does the rise of Islam mean for the West? What do Westerners need to know to understand its religion and politics--and its diversity? Should the West feel threatened? Is there an imminent "clash of civilizations"? What is the connection between international terrorism and the fundamentalist Islamic movement?
John Esposito, a Catholic professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, points out several perceptions--not just his own or Islam's--about the interaction of Judaism-Christianity-Islam. He presents a view of the strengths and weaknesses during the history of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. He describes how Muslims interfaced with the Jewish tribes and converted some Jews to Islam. This book tries to clarify the media stereotypes, tries to foster understanding, is not pro-Islam, and is extremely balanced and objective. It presents a bigger picture, and if you truly want to educate yourself about the world with respect to Islam, then this is one of the books to read and discuss. Interesting Links: About the Author Islamic Guide for non-Muslims \|\| Understanding Islam Council on American-Islamic Relations \|\| Multi-National Muslim Committee Map of the world of Islam: Sunni and Shia \|\| World Factbook- Iraq Ottoman Empire Expansion and Decline Maps For Your Consideration: Do you agree with the author's explanation of why modernization in the Middle East is equated with "Westernization"? Do you agree with the Muslim and Western experts that a Western-based process of modernization is necessary but that religion is a major hindrance to political and social change in the Muslim world? Do you agree that Islamic activism and secular modernism cannot agree to disagree? Why does modernization threaten Islamic revitalism and why can't Islamic countries incorporate their religious way of life into the modern way of life since modern technology is used to spread Islam? What did loss of Jerusalem cause thruout Muslim world and is this reaction similar to the reaction of the Jewish world to the defense of Israel?

Discussion Leader: Ann Alden

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please Contact Books

This is another interesting and well written book about the meaning of Islam and its growth within the modern times. Also, within the book, is another look at the three faiths that have grown out of the belief in one God that comes from the time of Abraham.

Come and join us while we discuss this most interesting book on June 1.

The Islamic Threat

What does the rise of Islam mean for the West? What do Westerners need to know to understand its religion and politics--and its diversity? Should the West feel threatened? Is there an imminent "clash of civilizations"? What is the connection between international terrorism and the fundamentalist Islamic movement? Esposito's THE ISLAMIC THREAT, considered prescient and balanced when it was originally published in 1992, has gone through several editions in which the author has updated his material.

Looking forward to this discussion.

I too, will be here.

This book.

Has anyone else heard about the possibility of them finding the Ark?? I heard a news report about this man who is paying for the expedition to the top of Mt Ararat. He put out a call to all archeaologists to contact him if they would be willing to go on the expedition. Annnnd, he is also saying that he wants the climbers to consist of folks from the three main religions which are monotheistic. Most interesting, hmmmmm??? He says the cost to him will be about $900,000!! Whoa!

That does sound like a most interesting idea. But since I am neither an archeologist nor a millionaire I shall have to pass and sit here while others do it.

I have seen the documentary on the Ark and the flood several times. I find the story most interesting. So few people listened to Noah and believed him. Would people today be any better about listening to important messages?

A couple of weeks ago we had a guest speaker - an Anglican Bishop from Salt Lake come to our community to discuss the relationship between Muslims and Christians and how we differ and how we are alike. After his lecture he agreed to answer questions. The meeting seemed to break down when a Lutheran Minister and some people from our local LDS church tried to turn the discussion in to one about dogma. It was an immediate lesson in why we need to understand each other better.

Glad you are here and hope you will read the book.

Yes, we do need to understand our faith and others and learn to respect each other's beliefs and practices.

I took an afternoon nap too.....I posted earlier that I got the 1.39 book and it was in excellent condition....I began reading it a couple of weeks ago and it has indeed opened my eyes a bit all ready.... I find that I must read a little.....digest ....and then read a bit more.....I have learned all ready that Islam cannot be fit into one mold anymore than Christians can......much diversity......

Here's a link to an editorial in the Washington Post by Pervez Musharaf, President of Pakistan, which offers a good look at how one Muslim leader views the Islamic threat and what Muslims can (and should) be doing about it. Musharaf's comments add another dimension to what we will be reading/discussing in Esposito's book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5081-2004May31.html

We are starting off slowly but we will get there.

First question this morning is:

Do we all (the world population) have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "fundamentalism"? What does it mean to you, when you hear it used??

Like Babi, I am having to read slowly to digest each idea presented in the book. Slowly and over and over! What problems we have with semantics in this world.

Ann, Is it too late to join the discussion. I don't have the book, but I'm sure my library can order it.

Rich

Persian I read the Musharraf article and thought it very fine.....Would that more moderate Muslims would speak out....I wish every American and every Muslim could read this article but of course that won't happen......One thing I did notice in the article was his feeling that the reasons Muslims are now practicing terror tactics is because of poverty and illiteracy.....Bin Laden was neither.....It is more complex than that though I realize.......Ann when I think of fundamentalism I think of course of Christians who believe in the bible literally and practice their faith accordingly......I think after reading some about Islam that the trouble is with the Radical Muslims who distort the meaning of Islam.....not necessarily Islamic Fundamentalist.....Is the wrong Persian or are they one and the same.....

To me it means a closed mind and the cause of much of the world's problems.

Just today in Roseville, CA the local school board voted 3 to 2 to keep anti-evolution ideas out of biology classes. Imagine! 3 to 2 in this day and age!

Fundamentalists never seem to learn and are big trouble in general.

It is never too late to join in a discussion. Get thee to the library and we welcome you and any new posters, "mit or mit out book" to come and join this very timely discussion.

There are links to other articles or site about our subject plus we are always slipping in a link, inside our posts,ie. see Persian's newspaper article of today. Very interesting, Persian!

I understand what you mean about our understanding of the word but do we understand what the author is referring to when he uses "fundamentalism"? Do you like his use of Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism instead? One refers to the religion and the other political??? I think that's what he means.

Ten Things to Know about the Middle East

IMO, I think one can be a Muslim fundamentalist (or Christian for that matter) without being a radical or enjoining terrorist actions. As a Muslim who adheres to fundamental teachings of Islam, I think of people who pray regularly, give a substantial portion of their income to charity, take care of their families and others who do not have family, but are in need, respect others and strive in their community to support and develop good relations with each other, raise children and youth who are decent and law abiding with solid educational opportunities. In Islam, if one is able to afford the journey, making the Pilgrimage (Haj) to Mecca is also a requirement. Millions of Muslims are able to do so - sometimes more than once - while others, less affluent, are not. Muslims who adhere to the fundamentals of Islam take pride in their family, try to avoid lying or cheating for their own gain.

In the past few years, or course, the word "fundamentalist" in connection with Islam and Muslims has come to mean something quite different, thanks to bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and individuals who consider that they are making a political statement by becoming "jihadists." This word, also, has taken on a different meaning than originally intended, which was/is a personal struggle within oneself to live/strive for a decent way of life and overcome temptations.

When I think of what (to me)is the exact opposite of fundamental Islam, I think of the enormous sums of money bin Laden has spent on his terrorist activities. If even a small portion of those funds were donated to the education of impoverished Muslim youth, improving the health services for them and their families in refugee camps, eradicating disease which spreads like wildfire through the densely populated campus, and other humanitarian gestures, it would be money well spent.

The West's perception of what RADICAL Muslims perceive is their adherence to fundamental Islam is driven in large part by the media, which tend to focus on the "sensational" stories, rather than the hum-drum of everyday events.

It is only recently that Muslims have raised their public voice to decry the actions of those Muslim terrorists. The Muslim community in the USA, like earlier immigrant communities, has not felt that they had a voice until recently. Leaders within the Muslim community in the USA have worked hard with their Christian and Jewish counterparts to achieve a better balance of understanding about Muslims. Islamic organizations throughout the country in concert with local mosques, their congregations and leadership are now, finally, giving public voice to what is/is not the core values in Islam. And, hopefully, non-Muslims will continue to listen and learn.

SELDOM - your comments about a "closed mind" are right on. This is true in ANY religious community, where the interest in learning about others is lacking. IMO, the only way we're going to learn about others - and realize that their beliefs are as important to them as ours are to us - is to really listen, ask questions and think about the answers.

Pride in their religion and history was one of the reasons for the rise in activism and revivalism. This was brought to their attention by Khomeni and Sadr in the '80's. Did they both reason that the Muslims needed to return to their basic beliefs of Islam which was a way of life that incorporated their daily lives along with their secular lives?

I have no problem with this solution to improving the religious life plus the public life. There seems to me that this is no different than Christianity's constant reminder that we need to practice what we preach.

My problem comes alive with what seems to be a violent reaction by the Middle East Muslims to Western modernization. Why must it be violent?

Were you surpri8sed that the largest Muslim population is in Asia and that to be Malaysian is to be Muslim? And, also, I wasn't aware that Bangladesh was the eastern section of Pakistan, the Muslim formed by the Indian Muslims. (I thought it was part of Africa) So, I need a timeline to all of this plus a map to mark up!! A paper map!

This is going to be a history AND geography lesson.....I have a globe of the world handy now when I am reading....... I am greatly heartened to read that not ALL Muslims agree with this radicalism which Bin Ladin and other groups are fomenting......That other governments which are mainly Muslim are working against these terrorists groups.....Do any of you believe that the Israeli, Palestinian conflict is partly if not largely at the bottom of a lot of this.......

Do scroll up, down and sideways as this is a good map to see where these two Islamic sects are located.

Islamic Population Maps

Ann - great map; many thanks. Here is a link about Bangladesh, which gives the timeline of the establishment of the country when it won independence from India. http://www.iifhr.com/Country%20Profiles/Bangladesh.htm

TIGERLILY - Truly, there are millions of Muslims around the world who are greatly saddened by the violence and terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam by organizations like Al Qaeda (and its leader bin Laden). We in the West have been made more aware of Al Qaeda in connection with our efforts to combat terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the organization has also struck deep into the heartland of its leader. Saudi Arabia has recently suffered several terrorist attacks within its borders. The Saudi government has just this week announced that it is closing a huge global organization (with a branch in Oregon of all places)which had presented itself as a humanitarian entity. The Saudis may have been slower to realize the danger which bin Laden and his followers posed to Saudi Arabia, but they surely know now!

It would be impossible to dismiss the role that the escalation of negative relations beteeen Israelis and Palestinians has wrought in the lack of peace in the Middle East. From a historical perspective, the Palestinians lived alongside the Jews for many generations, sharing the land and respecting each other's traditions and religious backgrounds. Many families shared each other's holidays, assisted in times of famine or other financial disasters. Thus, the Palestinians felt they had a right to remain in their ancestral homes when the State of Israel was established in 1948. The Zionists did not and efforts were made to buy Palestinian lands from absent and onsite landlords or to force owners to relocate or leave the country. This is not critical reasoning, but historical facts.

Although the USA has strongly supported Israel since its beginning and continues to do so today, the Palestinian people (NOT their organizations like the PLO) would dearly love to resolve the issues with Israelis. And more and more, average Israelis would also like to settle the issues. Israeli friends whom I talk with regularly "how many more generations can this violence continue?" And Palestinian friends echo their sentiments. The tension in the country has been fed by political goals of the leaders (both Israeli and Palestinian)at the cost of many lives on both sides.

In the Arab world, the issue of settling the Israeli/Palestinian issue is paramount, as commented on for years by the late Anwar Sadaat and King Hussein of Jordan(who negotiated an agreement with Israel). For their efforts, Egypt was ostracised by the Arab world for some time; Jordan was punished by the lack of funding from wealthy Arab countries. However, they maintained their strong relations with Israel (and the USA).

Even among the American Jewish community, there has been more of a public voice to settle the issues between the Israelis and Palestinians. Several years ago when Arafat absolutely rejected any efforts toward peace, one could hear a collective groan around the world! This is a substantial issue which has brought Israelis and Palestinians much sorrow and will continue to do so until wiser minds are able to reconcile a path to peace.

Keep your world globe handy. It will be interesting when we begin discussing world regions like Afghanistan, whose population is majority Islam, but many of whose tribes consider themselves descended from the ancient Jewish tribes. Thus they are "converts" to Islam. NOTE: This is clearly dealt with in James Michner's CARAVANS, if you happen to have a copy or have read that book. My son will deploy to Afghanistan later this month and I've sent him a copy, so he has a ready reference to some of the beliefs of the Afghans.

Mahlia I am glad to see you here.

I hear from Moderate followers of Islam that they do not wish in many cases to espouse our value systems. Our way of life shocks many Muslims. I have to say it shocks me at times. We should not force our values on them or our ideas of democracy if the people do not want it. If the people want it they will overthrow the authorities as happened in your own War of Independance and in the French Revolution. Democracy not gained for the people by the people is never lasting.

Carolyn

CAROLYN - good to see you, too! I think this will definitely be an intersting discussion.

It's certainly true that many of the questionable aspects of Western (especially American) society are unattractive to Muslims - those in the USA and around the world. What comes up most often in conversations on this topic is the intense focus on sexuality among American films, TV, books, and in developing new actors/actresses. Behaviors between male and female youth are often shocking to the conservative Muslims; the level of heinous crimes among/towrds young people are absolutely shocking. (My husband is still reeling at the news recently of a family in Baltimore, MD, whose children were violently attacked - one beheaded - in their own homes.) The rape of women also is shocking for a culture where women's sexuality is highly protected. From the American standpoint, of course, the humiliation and sequestering of women inside the home (or in the case of Central Asia, inside a head-to-toe Burqa)is unusual and unacceptable to Americans.

As for Democracy, it's not for everyone and every nation. The democratic values that we hold dear in the West have been hard-won; the loss of lives to uphold those values have been enormous as we just witnessed again during our Memorial Day celebrations remembering the men and women who served abroad during the World Wars. A highly uneductaed population finds Democracy puzzling and tends to take more comfort in a central leader - at least they're familiar with that type of governance. Or in a country like China, which has a high level of educated people, but who have lived under very tightly controlled Government regulation, a semblance of democracy will take time. (However, in China's case, alot of the business sector is fostering more rapid advancement away from the Central Government.)

. . . town but am no one here seems to have it even in their computer system. I don't really want to buy it over the net; so I think I will mostly come here and read unless I have another statement to make such as I've been doing in the "Islam" forum. And Bo is right, those things I've been saying over there really would be better said over here, although I don't feel there has been controversy at all---just some opinions. Maybe you can move my posts?

Anyhow, what I appreciate a lot is that Mahlia seems to have such a balanced view, admitting the negative and the positives, and on top of it she is incredibly diplomatic. I'm surprised, Mahlia, that you haven't been recruited for the diplomatic corps.

But I don't think that laying the cards on the table about something we might feel passionate about is wrong unless there is hatred involved. Intent means a lot, and spreading hatred is different from trying to understand a complex problem and being passionate about it while trying to understand more. In our times of danger Islam is an emotional subject and I don't mind admitting that. I think it would become less emotional if more of those peace-loving Muslims actually spoke out loud and clear and if we could hear them loud and clear---that what the extremists are doing is WRONG and that it is NOT SUPPORTED by them; but we haven't heard very much of that at all. Is that the fault of our news media? Is European news giving the same sort of one-sided view or is it different? I know there are SOME very educated peace-loving Muslims speaking out, but they do seem to be in the minority, and I wonder why.

Today in France, for instance, there have such a high percentage of Muslims living within the borders of France that the beloved French way of life has become threatened, including such mundane things as school clothing and what foods are sold in markets and what foods are served in restaurants (food is an emotional subject with the French!). It was already threatened by American imports, and these days it's threatened even more by Muslim immigrants, and they don't like it. It's not really easy to know what to do if you believe in monogamy and your neighbor next door or down the hall has more than one wife and 12 children and slaughters goats in the hallway of your building, or if your daughter who was walking alone has been attacked and raped by a Moroccan gang because their culture says that a woman alone is easy prey, all of which have happened in France. Most of us like the sort of lifestyle we've worked hard for, and resent when it is being undercut by other social groups. It causes a whole lot of friction, and it's expensive when the social net has to be expanded to accommodate them and their ways and language and religions.

I suppose the only way human beings will ever work this out is if we have no more borders, where everyone can live anywhere without visas, and we all intermarry and become the same. But while we have differences in lifestyle and belief, I think the warring will continue. To me it just seems inevitable, and of course, if warring goes on, I do believe in self-defense. Diplomacy is fine up to a certain point, and beyond that I believe in teaching lessons the hard way, in the same way I learned my life lessons.

"Do you agree with the author's explanation of why modernization in the Middle East is equated with "Westernization"?

No, I don't agree with the author about that. It's the lazy man's way out. If Muslim countries wish to be "modern" but don't wish "westernization" seems to me it's up to them to do that, and to pick and choose carefully those things they wish to incorporate into their societies and those things they don't want, exactly the same as I had to do as an immigrant to the U.S.A. You know, after WWII Japan had to grapple with exactly that same problem----how to stay "Japanese" without adopting western ways. They seem to have found a pretty good compromise. So it is possible.

On top of that, many of the Muslims I have known (and there have been quite a few engineers who worked with my husband and whom we entertained at home and got to know) are two-faced, claiming to be devout Muslims on the one hand, and then drinking alcohol like the rest of us, or worse, and visiting strip joints or porno sites on the net. It was talked about quite openly in company where they let their hair down. I even know one engineer from Pakistan who not only enjoyed the "western lifestyle" while denigrating it in the same breath, but he convinced his parents that his sister would be "safe" with him here, and the two of them had a WILD time while she "vacationed" here, with him introducing her to all sorts of nefarious things that I found shocking, only to go back home and talk about how awful American society is. I admit I did not appreciate that then, and I still don't appreciate it. From what I've read in other than the "popular" news media, Osama's gang does pretty much the same thing, sitting at computers in their hide-outs in Pakistan salivating over porno sites.

Most of the ones I spoke to, who were highly educated, also were intrigued by the fact that I was German, and the conversation eventually got around to Hitler and how he treated the Jews; and what horrified me is that they were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's decimation of the Jews and considered him a hero.

I can't say how ALL Muslims are, but I can say how those were that I met, and for the most part they were hypocritical, immoral, and hate-filled towards the Jews and not too kind about America even though they took advantage of all the benefits America offered them, and then some. Some of the men were also drop-dead handsome, but when they opened their mouths I was so disgusted that I had to walk away.

So that's my opinion for the day. It's my personal experience and may not be true of what others experience, but it not only has to be admitted and discussed that there is a hypocritical element in Islam, but that the hypocritical element seems, at least for the time being, to have more power than the rational/sane element.

A hearty hello, and thank you for being here with your ever sound head and heart. DONNA

Please don't worry about buying the book as I will try to pose questions on a regular basis. Your opinions are valued and appreciated.

And, yes, Mahlia, we do value your "fair and balanced" comments!

I have spent 9 hours( we rose at 4:30am) at the hospital Cardiac Care Unit where my husband had a generator replaced in his defibrillator so I will not have a lot to say for now. He got along fine and is now sleeping. I will see you all tomorrow!

ANN - good news from your Cardiac Care unit to our discussion group. Rest up and then come roaring back in t pick up the threads that we have been laying down for you.

DONNA - Greetings to you, too. This will certainly be an intriguing discussion. Glad you're here.

MOUNTAIN ROSE - Yes, I, too have met some Muslims like those you describe. A couple were so completely obnoxious that I walked away from shared dinner tables, an Embassy Reception (after I rebutted several comments that were abhorent to me)and asked two couples to leave my home because of their comments. Coming from a multicultural background (French/Irish/Persian and Jewish/Christian/Muslim), I tend to "cover the bases" and try to be as fair to each person with whom I interact as possible. However, as you described, sometimes one absolutely MUST stand up against hypocrisy and hatred. That's when my IRISH really comes forth.

It's sad that there are elements in various societies which seem intent on forcing their beliefs and customs on others - here the Al Qaeda folks come readily to mind, although so do the Taliban of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border regions. And, unfortunately, the USA is NOT without its ugly elements as well. Here I am thinking of the White Supremists, or some of the Hassidim in New York whom I've met and left with chills running up and down my spine. Some ultraorthodox Christians whom I met in the Appalachian rural region years ago just left me shaking my head at their total ignorance of the plurality in the rest of the USA. Granted within their own communities, these folks may be well respected and do good work for their neighbors. But their narrow-mindedness (and disinterest in learning not just about the world, but even about areas closer to their home areas), makes me sad. But, then, alot of things in life are sad. I promised myself many years ago that when I was confronted by actions or comments which I thought deplorable, I'd speak out. And although that was many years ago, I still follow that practice today and, within reason, encourage others to do so as they deem appropriate.

My son (a Christian Army Chaplain) and my husband (an Egyptian Muslim professor of literature)tease me incessantly about being "such a lady." Then my son breaks in with "Yeah, but let someone try to harm or embarass one of us, and Mom will be in their face in a nanosecond." So I've learned that we all do the best we can and move on with life.

And just as you mentioned above - share your perceptions, present your arguments, stand up for your beliefs and then listen to what others have to say. Converstions/discussions need NOT turn into arguments. My beliefs and practices suit me, not necessarily anyone else. I like to hear what others say - not to adopt their beliefs necessarily - but to learn from them.

In the same way that we can each read John Esposito's work and either accept or reject his comments; appreciate the professional role he has undertaken in life and the experiences he brings to his books; and use his comments to help us to understand the Islam of which he speaks. And of course in approaching the discussion - whether one has the book or not - one brings their own experiences to the table. Yours, for example, bring a rich dimension to this group that those of us who are native-born Americans would never be able to achieve.

I just glanced through my notes and realized that I meant earlier to comment about whay more Muslims have not spoken out more adroitly (and loudly) about their repugnance towards the terrorist acts committed by "fundamental" Muslims around the world.

In the USA, particularly, and perhaps in the growing Muslim communities in Europe (several of which may certainly feel disenfranchised from the majority society to which they immigrated), there has been an overall caution (enforced by community and religious leaders) regarding speaking publicly about issues which are perceived (by Muslims) to not be well understood by non-Muslims, whether in the USA or Europe.

I think I've mentioned this previously, so please excuse my repetition. In the USA, several Islamic organizations in Washington DC and California HAVE commented publicly about the fact that the terrorist activities are NOT supported by mainstream Muslims. At the same time, there are articles appearing in the American media about individual Muslims who participated in terrorist training in rural Oregon; young, disgruntled Muslims in Detroit and NEw York City, who have become "suspicious" to authorities. So the comments from the organizations - which encourage Muslims to speak out about important community issues, run for elected office, participate in school boards or community organizations, etc. - lose a bit of steam when reports of the negative behavior of individual Muslims appears in print or on the TV news.

And there is a cultural reason for this as well. Muslims (particularly those who are not American-born) are not acculturated to LOUD, SPECIFIC AND INTENSE comments in a public arena. Whereas Americans (especially politicians) are given to very specific comments, Muslim traditions do not encourage this kind of communication. Women's issues are generally dealt with BY WOMEN in the family, not in a public format, and often without the input of the men in the family. This is changing a bit, but certainly NOT by leaps and bounds. Women in public - as would apply to an elected official at the local, State and certainly Federal levels - are not all that common, although many more Muslim women are trying to change that in the USA and other countries. Muslim women tend to deal with women's issues (i.e., family, children, health care, charity), rather than the "hard topics" one associates with public office. This, too, will change as younger Muslim women "come into their own" and continue to value the role of women in a democratic society.

Several years ago, I designed a seminar for Muslim women, which allowed them to learn how to plan to be effective voices in their communities; how to contact elected officials in a way acceptable (and comfortable) to them; how to present their ideas (and solutions) for various issues; how to be effective in their communities - signing petitions and WHY petitions are useful in public forumns - suggesting and then helping to develop changes in the public schools their children attended; and, perhaps most importantly, how to really use democracy to support the things that felt strongly about.

Alot of the women came with preconceived ideas; some had absolutely no idea what to expect at all; others were "rabid reformers" who needed cooling down to be effective. But the majority really wanted to learn. And learn we all did. So I'm hopeful that as younger Muslims mature, their voices (both female and male) will be heard on a more regular basis in the public forumn.

Don't we get authorative men in Fundamentalist Christian groups? I sure have met them. Many of them were hyprocritical too even indulging in wife beating. We must be careful not to generalise.

For instance in my SILs to be's family who are Muslim the mother definately wears the pants in the family. It may not look like it to outsiders but she is the major decision maker in the family and her son does not like to displease her. He really honors her.

When my daughter marries she does not have to convert. This is the attitude of the moderate Muslim the ones who are not out in the public arena but who practice what they consider to be a faith of peace and love to their fellow man whoever they are.

CAROLYN - Regarding a Mulim man marrying a non-Muslim woman: this is sanctioned in Islam, although it does not work that way for Muslim women who wish to marry non-Muslim men, since many Muslims adhere to the raising of children in the religion of the father.

I'm glad you made the point about the strong role your daughter's future MIL holds in her family. That is also true of many Muslim families, but as you mentioned, the strength of the mother, grandmother and elder aunt is not well known outside of the family. And usually the strength is recognized, respected and assumed by family members without too much chatter. Muslims tend to follow the edit that "the hand which rocks the cradle," is a significant voice in family - and often community - issues. This is another aspect of Muslim culture which the West is not really aware of, having spent so much time on "the repression of women in Islam." And, truthfully, there is a lot of repression, but as I've mentioned many times before it is often continued due to cultural, rather than Islamic, traditions.

. . . so well balanced that you just amaze me.

Yes, I do understand that being loud and vocal is not customary in many societies, and I suppose because of the way our news media works, that means that subsequently the quiet groups also do not get the attention that their behind-the-scenes effort really deserves. That's been a real problem with the news media for me, and why I have pretty much eliminated the popular news media out of my life. I prefer to search and read peripheral news, often from sources that hardly anyone has ever heard of, before coming to a conclusion. Still, I think when one feels threatened by a group that is a minority, it's natural to become defensive.

I also agree with you that fanatics are everywhere, and frankly, the Christian religious fanatics in this country (the very right wing) have worried me for a long time, including the political power they have gained. For some strange reason, however, that sort of fundamental fanaticism seems to be a current phenomenon all over the world, and I can't help but wonder why.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

I am reading the 2nd chapter about the roots of conflict, cooperation and confrontation between Islam and the West.

One of the points made is that

"although they have common theological roots, both sides have focused on and reinforced differences and have polarized rather than united these three(Judism, Christianity and Islam) great interrelated monotheistic traditions."

Isn't is a shame that we aren't sharing more of our commonness? Does knowing the history of the faith and their God-given orders to clean up the world's wrongs help us to understand the aims of today's Muslims?

In the book," Muhammad did not claim to bring a new religion but to purify and restore the one true religion of Abraham." And, my immediate thought was of Luther when he tacked his 95 theses on the Catholic Church's door. He was trying to reform and restore the church.

In the book, we learn that Muhammad preached a return to the faith of Abraham meaning a belief in the one true God. He reiterated the belief that human beings are accountable and will be judged on Judgement Day. The call to Islam was a call to return to the (sharia) or law of God. Again, I think of Luther's theses.

like to comment about: "Do you agree with the Muslim and Western experts that a Western-based process of modernization is necessary but that religion is a major hindrance to political and social change in the Muslim world?"

Yes, I do agree with the Muslim and Western experts on this. It does not mean that modernization has to come to Islamic countries quite in the same way that it has in the West, but it is inevitable, and they may as well adjust and find creative ways of incorporating modernism instead of railing against it, even if it's going to be a painful process. But it is up to them to do so, not up to us to force it on them, even though we can be mentors and guides. At the same time, if they don't do that and continue their anit-modern stance, I feel that whatever problems they have are of their own making no matter how much the fanatics point the finger at us.

The world does not stand still for anyone, and whether we like it or not, modernism is here to stay. There are many things I don't like about it either, so in my life I make choices about what I will and what I won't incorporate, and sometimes along the way I change my mind and add something I though originally to be not worthy, or throw something out that didn't meet my needs. I don't see why Islam can't do that also. Their leaders do need to lead the way instead of blaming the U.S.A. Hopefully a strong and wise leader will appear soon to get the show on the road, because if that doesn't happen it will be a very slow and dangerous process.

But, on that note, I think religion, by its very structure and methods of control, is a hindrance to progress. As far as I'm concerned religion is still in the dark ages, and that means both Islam and Christianity. The so-called "rules" of both religions are often repressive and controlling and need to grow up---and I say this despite being a Christian myself. One can keep one's religious beliefs and incorporate modernism if one goes about it methodically and logically, separating the wheat from the chaff and those things that are basic and matter from those that are peripheral and invented. I think most of Judaism, being so much older and wiser, has a good handle on that, which is one reason I believe the Jews are so adaptable in whatever part of the world they end up in. Both Islam and Christianity need to take some hard-earned lessons from the Jews.

"The call to Islam was a call to return to the (sharia) or law of God. Again, I think of Luther's theses.

Alas, what happens is that the original intentions are probably good and as with everything mankind touches, along the way the ideas get corrupted and those corruptions often get set into concrete and become intolerant. You know, the "law of God" is a matter of opinion, so it cannot be applied in the same way everywhere. Even our personal concept of God is unique. And if Mohammed wanted us to return to the ONE GOD, then why is Islam warring with Judaism? Because Judaism, almost more than any other religion is very well versed in ONE GOD. I can even understand Islam's reaction against Christianity because we have the trinity, but I also believe that's just a misunderstanding of our belief that their clerics need to clear up for the ordinary person instead of warring against the trinity concept.

But as I stated, I think Islam, just like Christianity once did, is in its rebellious teenage years, flexing its muscles, until it settles down the way Judaism has and the way Christianity is still in the process of doing. And I think we all pretty much know what happens in family when there is a rebellious teen around.

I sort of look at Islam as being the teen, Christianity as being in its late 20s and early 30s, and Judaism being in a comfortable middle age. But I don't think any of the monotheistic religions are what we would call "old and wise" yet.

MOUNTAIN ROSE - you should be in the classroom, and I certainly hope you are able to share your thoughts with Muslims in your area or perhaps in an interfaith forumn.

Regarding your question above about the developing presence of "fundamental fanaticism" throughout the world, my sense is that as long as denominations send forth missionaries to world regions which they do not thoroughly understand and respect for their "differences" in the practice of religion, there will be fundamental fanaticism, resulting in continued (and more severe) misunderstandings, as well as specific dangers. For example, when female Christian missionaries appear in a highly traditional orthodox Muslim community (i.e., rural Afghanistan) and attempt to insert comments about their Christian faith, Jesus as the Son of God, and accepting Christ as one's personal savior, they are asking for trouble - and often trouble finds them VERY quickly - even if they are interacting only with womens' groups.

Trying to discuss the Christian's concept of the Holy Trinity with a rural villager is a waste of time: he will think the person is an abomination, since to the villager's way of thinking WHY would God need a son? And when one reaches the point of the crucifixion, the villager's eyes will roll. Again, why would God (or any father) allow his son to be crucified for someone else's sins? To a Muslim it just simply does not make sense. Athough Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet and teacher, he is NOT regarded as the Son of God, nor do Muslims believe that He was crucified.

I have often thought that I would love to sit in a room with Jewish individuals who adhere to the Jews for Jesus organisation, some Israeli Hassidic Jews, as well as a couple of American Reform Jews, and, perhaps, most importantly, rural Jews from the Southern (former) marshlands of Iraq (who are really unaware of contemporary Judaism). (NOTE: Nelson DeMille's book BY THE WATERS OF BABYLON describes these Southern Iraqi Jews and they are absolutely fascinating. I'd also like to have some prominent Muslims from various global regions -the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Grand Sheik from Al Azhar in Cairo and perhaps the Grand Ayatollah Sistani from Iraq.

What conversations we could have! What great arguments would arise! and the levels of Working our way through all the levels of argument and expllicit points (major and minor) would take a very long time. I'd truly enjoy that type of conversation. But then as a woman, would they accept me?

I tend to think of Islam, especially in the West, as going through "relocation" pains, rather than "teenage" pains. Kind of looking for its place in socieites which Muslims often do not understand, do not feel comfortable in (but have relocated due to various financial, educational or political concerns), are shocked by the laxity of sexual morals and confront major language problems.

Earlier immigrants from Western Europe, although bringing with them different country's customs and languages, shared less of a difference than many immigrants do today who arrive in the USA from countries as diverse as the hinterlands of sub-Sahara Africa, the deserts of the Beudoin in North Africa and throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, the archipelagos of Southeast Asia, and the mountainous regions of China or the steppes of the far Eastern regions of the former Soviet Union. They will learn what they need to learn to survive - as all people do or return to their home countries - but one cannot expect that the more public practices of a demoicracy (freedom of speech comes to mind)will come easily to these groups. And those of us already here - whether native born or from earlier generations of immigrants - can best help by just sharing our thoughts and perceptions, assisting in specific ways when possible, and explaining, explaining, explaining as much about our society as we have opportunities to do so.

Just fabulous postings.....welcome Mountain Rose....good to hear your thoughts again.....Mahalia.....another personage to add to the group of religious leaders might be the Pope!.......

post #39. I've believed for many years that missionary work is insulting and causes much animosity; that people already have their beliefs, and that the BEST missionary work is just living your life as well as you can. Then, if someone asks you why you live as you do, it can be an invitation to explain your beliefs, still without trying to convert, but just explaining. My role model for this is Albert Schweitzer, whom I have admired ever since childhood. When the natives in the Congo asked him why he was helping them and what gave him the strength to be there in that harsh environment, he explained that it was his Christian belief, answered specific questions they had, and then let it go and let GOD do the rest. It always seems to me that missionaries who push display no confidence in God or the Holy Spirit.

Here is another question of Ann's I would like to respond to. She asked: "What did loss of Jerusalem cause thruout Muslim world and is this reaction similar to the reaction of the Jewish world to the defense of Israel?" ---- I confess, the loss of a "place" is something I have NEVER understood, since true belief is a "spiritual idea" and has really very little to do with place. So the loss of Jerusalem or any other so-called "holy" place for that matter, has no bearing at all on my belief, and it's a real puzzle to me why it means so much to others. Maybe part of that is the fact that I am an immigrant and have no attachment to any place, unlike most people in the world, but I really don't see the importance of it. Even pilgrimages mean nothing to me; and the "spiritual idea" means all. So frankly, I don't understand religions that have attachment to places or icons or relics, or even symbols, even though my own religion has many of those. Luckily to be part of my religion I don't have to believe those things are important, since I couldn't, and that's one reason I treasure Catholicism---because to be a Catholic I don't have to make those things part of my belief. The core of the "idea" is all I need. I appreciate that and am glad it has been taught to me in that way; thus feeling free of "places" and "things" and "symbols". I couldn't do it any other way and really don't understand the importance of it to most people, or why their clergy doesn't teach them that the "idea and ideals" are more important than the places, and ideas and ideals can be kept independently in your head and are thus truly FREE.

But as my priest has said, "Most people just need the symbols to make the idea real to them, and if it helps them then it isn't wrong." While I agree with that, I think those very things also cause a lot of strife on this planet, and I think human beings should evolve in their beliefs to the point where it is not dependent on anything physical, and the clergy should be helping them gently along in that direction instead of buying into the necessity for all those things.

But that's just my opinion. It would certainly end the strife over Jerusalem and all these so-called "holy" places if people could take them or leave them.

. . . getting all those people you mentioned together would be highly interesting. What fabulous conversation! But if I were there I tend to think I would throw a monkey wrench into the works by plain out telling them they have not done their jobs very well in getting their ideals across to the average person, and that it's time they began working on it. LOL

From my extensive spiritual reading, the fact is that people who are very educated in their own beliefs and confident of them tend to get along very well because they know how to exchange ideas without pushing, and if they have a true belief in the power of God, they also know that God will do whatever needs to be done without them having to push. Thomas Merton, the Catholic monk, had much correspondence with both Zen leaders and Muslim leaders, and it stayed very respectful with each learning from the other, without anyone being asked to give up his own belief.

Now if only the true spiritual leaders could teach their followers the same techniques, what a break for the world that would be! But I suppose it's like everything human beings touch---it becomes more a matter of power and control and wealth than transmitting ideals---even in religion which should ideally be immune from all that.

__________

Tigerliley, hello. Nice to see you again!

Here's a link (which I also posted in the Islam discussion) to excerpts in today's Washington Post from an article written last Tuesday for the Saudi government daily newspaper Al-Watan by Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the USA, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Aldulaziz Al Saud. This is a highly unusual public announcement in which the Ambassador states clearly and directly what (in his opinion) must be done about "the Islamic threat" terrorists who attack Saudi Arabia in the name of Islam. Bandar is speaking as a dedicated Muslim, a long-time member of the Saudi diplomatic service (currently he is the Dean of Washington's Diplomatic Corps, having served in his current post for more than 20 years) and as a former member of the Saudi military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17405-2004Jun5.html

ANN - I've been thinking about Question #7 (above)and IMO, its not the modern technology in the workplace that has been such a problem in the Muslim world, but the much more relaxed Western societal mores which in many cases are flat-out are repugnant to Islamic communities. For example, whereas there used to be only a few Western trained engineers, doctors, scientists and businessmen/women in Saudi Arabia, now there are thousands who have helped to modernize the country's infrastructure - even though we in the West may not be aware of that change in the Saudi society, since until recently not a lot has been noted in the media.

Educated Muslims who return to their homeland and work to enhance their own societies are much more commonplace now, than in previous generations. They appreciate modern technology, organizational methodologies vs the often unknowns of only relying on tribal customs (which often depended on Nature). And yet, in some areas, Muslims are still able to combine modern technology with their time-honored customs (i.e., the Beudoins of North Africa and Central Asia, who have incporated some of the best of both worlds for their tribes.)

I don't think it is modern technology per se which is contrary to Islamic culture - although in this sense some of the porn oriented electronic games and DVD's sure would be - but the laxness of the Western society's morals which are repulsive to Muslims.

Yet, there are still customs within conservative Muslim cultures (again, Saudi Arabia comes to mind), like the punishment for stealing which is abhorent to Westerners. In this case, the thief's right hand is amputated. In some rural areas, women suspected of adultery are stoned to death or beaten severely. I don't know if the West will ever be able to accept some of the harsher Muslim laws still adhered to in some rural areas or whether Muslims living in Western countries will be able to accept and live with the much more lax societal mores in their adopted countries. One can only hope and pray and, when appropriate, serve as a mediator.

. . . even though harsh, are basically none of our business, even though I also believe they are too harsh. But they do become our business when groups who visit or immigrate here live by those laws instead of living by the laws of this country, or push them onto the rest of us with demands, or even lawsuits to change things or set precedents. Yes, I think stoning a woman for adultery is barbaric, but she lives in a society where those are the consequences, she knows that, and if she commits adultery anyhow she has to take the consequences of that action within her particular society. As far as I'm concerned it is really none of our affair, except perhaps in an indirect way through the U.N. and the general consensus as to what is and isn't "civilized".

I also believe that a visitor to Saudi Arabia ought to respect their laws and be aware of the punishment if he breaks them, and be prepared for that. It's like a visitor to my home who takes out and smokes a marijuana cigarette. I would not allow it and that visitor would be asked to leave immediately, and if he didn't leave I would have no hesitation in calling the police to heave him out. I think every country has the same sort of right to heave people out when their laws are broken. Whether or not they should get the same punishment as a permanent resident or a citizen is a question I will leave open. I suppose a visitor should be allowed some leeway as far as ignorance, and that's what we have embassies for, to sort those things out.

I agree with you that it's not the technology Muslims are against, but the loose morals in the western world. Well, I'm horrified by it too. But in a free society there will be people who don't put on the brakes or who have no morals. That is the cost of a free society, and as long as they are still within what is legal, that is simply a price of freedom. That same freedom is also the very thing that makes for a dynamic and creative society because other people are free to use the dynamic and creative for the good of that society. Frankly, I prefer that to a restrictive society where everyone has to think and be the same or expect harsh punishment. And ultimately, it is up to the Muslim leadership to instill in their followers the moral codes they believe necessary, and not rail against the west because we have different moral codes and even freedoms to let people be immoral. It boils down to personal choice, which it is ultimately anyhow, because as I said before, I've known quite a number of Muslims who claim to follow Islam, and do all those immoral things when they come here, just like the rest of us.

I also believe that every religion should address its own followers and leave other out of it. When the Pope speaks against abortion, he is addressing his followers, or should be. He has no right to make pronouncements for people who are not Catholics, even though it comes across that way in many people's minds and in the mind of the news media. Same for Islam. I have no objection to them following their moral codes. No one is stopping them. But leave the rest of us out of it and quit denigrating us for our "freedoms" to define what we want ourselves.

I think that's one of the main problems---once again, the fact that neither individuals nor religious institutions seem to realize where their boundaries are or stay within them. If my moral code clashes with something I see in my society, I follow my moral code. Often it is more restrictive than what society allows, but in a truly moral person that doesn't matter in the least. I would not have an abortion, even though my society allows it. But my society is also not telling me I MUST have an abortion, in which case there certainly would be war because then my freedom to decide is being infringed upon. Instead, my society leave me free to decide one way or another, whichever I consider right for me according to my moral code and religious beliefs, and that is FREEDOM. I don't believe democracy and freedom can work any other way.

It always comes with a price, and it's time Islam (or at least their leaders) realized it.

I read that article that you linked here and all through it, I was thinking of "Wahhabism" which, I believe,is the "official religion" of Saudi Arabia and also in Maylasia and I believe, Indonesia. Also, the majority of the American mosques, according to some reading that I have done, belong to the "Wahhabists" although who they belong to doesn't designate the beliefs or ways of praying of the attendees. I have collected a few links to discussions of "Wahhabaism" but must read them more fully before linking them here.

MountainRose

I think our age has made us more at ease with our own beliefs and we no longer feel a need to convince someone that we are right, wrong or indifferent when it comes to our personal beliefs. In the end, its between me and God as to what I believe. I really hate all the proclamations of the different higher ups in all religions. We all must come to our own understandings about our beliefs and I do think that age helps us relax about it.

ANN - the following is appropros to your comments about Wahhabism. The article is from today's issue of the Washington Post and the author, Mona Eltahawy, is the managing editor of Arabic Women's eNews and a columnist for the London-based newspaper Asharq al-Awsat. As in the previous article I linked (written by the Saudi Ambassdor to the USA), Eltahawy also calls for a realization by Muslims of how dangerous Wahhabism has become, not only in Saudi Arabia, but throughout the Muslim world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17037-2004Jun4.html

ANN - in considering followers of Wahhabism, remember that this ultra-orthodox adherence to Islam is found within Sunni Islam, not among the Shi'a (especially the Persians). Since there is an enormous Persian Muslim population in the USA (centered primarily in Southern California and the East Coast), their religious practices have become part of the recognized pluralism in the USA. And, interestingly, it is far easier for the Sunni and Shi'as to interact in the USA than in their home countries.

MOUNTAINROSE - your level of comfort with your own beliefs and how you display them (or not) is something to be hoped for in the future for newer immigrants. As we've discussed previously, those who are not yet accustomed to independent thinking will continue to find the freedoms we treasure bewildering (and in many cases threatening) until they, too, learn what freedom in the West is all about and how they (and their families) can benefit from it, while keeping their custsoms which fit into their newly adopted societies. This won't happen soon; it's an ongoing process and, hopefully, one which will become more familiar to the newcomers as time goes by. It is my hope that those who seek mentors will find them; those who act in conflict with laws and socially acceptable customs in their new homelands will learn from their punishments.

. . . but in the meantime I have some other comments to make, some things that truly puzzles me, and maybe some of you would have some insight. There is an element in this country which I call "social liberalism" which is against any sort of war in the Middle East, yet constantly feeds the anger of Islam by the very social policies they espouse, such as: questionable public morals on the part of the primary western leader (Clinton) which are OK with them, abortion rights, homosexual marriage rights, birth control in whatever form, teaching it even to children in school, atheism to the point where religious belief is disrespected, lack of censorship, separation of church and state which includes prayer in schools and even being seen with a Bible (is the Koran OK?), cloning, euthanasia, etc., etc. Those are all social and moral issues Islamists are horrified by; yet those social liberals don't seem to see the connection between what they espouse and the anger that caused 9/11. Nor do they wish to fight Islamists whose anger is directed against some, if not all, of those very issues. I'm wondering just exactly what their logic (or lack of logic)is. Do they really believe that if you let things lie and just go on your merry way making policy that others consider immoral, that things will solve themselves?

So I don't think it's just anger with Christian missionaries, but also with the "socially liberal" set that forces issues of questionably moral public policy. I think a Muslim would have more understanding towards a truly religious person, no matter what their belief is, than the so-called social liberal.

Also, with all the oil moneys that some Islamic nations have received, I feel that much of their dissatisfaction is the fact that the monies have not been used to build a basic infrastructure, and much of it has been frittered away on projects that look good in the surface, and the surface glitter has worn thin; or on families who are incredibly wealthy. The Saudi Arabia ruling family is a perfect example, with everyone getting a hand-out while the average person still lives in the middle ages. So I'm also wondering if the ruling classes who are leading the good life (a la West in many ways!!!) also instigate a lot of discontent, so people don't discover the fact that proper infrastructure has not been built, and then they keep the agitation going so that they never have to account for their misuse of all those billions.

Anyhow, I think all the issues are much more complex than any of the news media ever puts together, or any of us can ever put together, with all sorts variables playing into it. And I guess that's what I mean by "tides of history" when I have referred to that expression in other forums. Those are tides that are so complex that often we can't figure them out until it's all over and the damage has been done, and because we can't put all the pieces together to make the dam leak-proof, they will flow over us despite our attempts to stop them. When that happens all anyone can do is try to cope, survive, and keep his/her humanity intact.

Actually I'm not that pessimistic yet. I think there is still time to stem the tide and stop it, and maybe history will even give us other more pressing problems to help stem this particular tide in the Middle East, but with the way it's going right now I'm not exactly hopeful that these things can actually be resolved and have peace.

And yes, I think Islam is a threat to the West. In every religion there are the "spiritual ideals" which are peaceful. But the "spiritual ideals" are not the ones that usually play out in the real world. In the real world it is the "popular concept" of religious belief which plays out, which is often aggressive, controlling, demanding and punitive and uneducated and superstitious. And the so-called "spiritual leadership", unless they are exceptional, plays right into it to keep the control over the people "in the service of God" according to them. That is what Christianity has done in the past and is still doing in many areas, and that is what Islam is doing. The "ideals" are pretty much beside the point when it comes to playing out the "popular concepts" of the average joe who follows an average leader who has ego and control needs----and that's the Islam that I'm afraid of. It isn't the "ideal" Islam I fear, but this aggressive, angry, claustrophobic, tunnel-vision Islam.

. . . I agree that immigrants who come here will more than likely eventually figure it out, especially if they are punished when our laws are broken. But those aren't the people I'm worried about. I'm worried about the Osamas and his ilk, who have no desire to figure it out and only express hatred and anger and contempt for us. And they have enough followers to do a whole lot of damage and make life pretty miserable for the rest of us, including curtailing all those personal freedoms we have always had, such as going to an airport without going through a fire drill. I for one consider the freedom of movement an EXTREMELY important freedom, which the narrow-minded aggressive element has taken away from us, and is in the process of taking ever more freedoms away because we have to protect ourselves, and it's being done under the guise of Islam. There is no way we can stop it. It has to be stopped from within Islam itself.

Even Saudi Arabia's recent anti-terrorist pronouncements come a bit late, in my opinion. They should have been said loud and clear a long time ago. Instead money was being funneled to the extremists in all sorts of ways, and now that they themselves are being hurt, instead of just us, they are finally speaking out. Hopefully others will follow, and the Islamic leadership had better make much more of an effort to get control of their "peace-loving" side than they have been and also say that loud and clear to, because otherwise I don't think disaster can be averted.

Well, I suppose better late than never.

. . .persons might like, but this is a subject I have thought about for a long time, long before 9/11, have read much about, have many questions about, and believe is complex enough to deserve more than just cursory polite conversation. I won't be insulted if anyone skips over my posts, however.

MOUNTAINROSE - personally I think your comments are presented with a considerable amount of thought behind them, and I enjoy reading them. However, I wonder if you would be interested in not only sharing them in this discussion, but also in an interfaith group in your community where your substantial reading on the topic, coupled with your thoughtful remarks, could reach the Muslims of whom you speak. Perhaps you have already indicated where you reside and I may have missed that point, but if you are anywhere near a large city where opportunities for interfaith dialogue are available, I would certainly encourage you to investigate them. In many instances, individuals (or groups) are not always able to present ideas in a clear and concise manner without undue criticism. Positive criticism certainly has its place in the learning process and would, I believe, be well received in the manner in which you have presented your comments here.

Islam and Muslims, just like any other religion or group of people with whom the majority is not familiar, can certainly feel threatening. However, I think we are beginning to see that the Muslim leadership is "awakening" to the need for a stronger collective voice to identify and restrain terrorists like bin Laden and his ilk, who insist they are speaking/acting in the name of Islam when they commit (or support) the heinous crimes of late. Individuals in communities who would not ordinarily speak out, may be encouraged to do so.

Just as the Afghan women who have lived in the Disapora have recently found their voice since the Taliban was toppled and have begun to work together in the West and with their sisters in Afghanistan to achieve a some rudimentary rights for women, the Arab Muslims and those in Asia will, I believe find their own "voice." With encouragement, compassion and understanding, societies, customs and cultures can change. As more educated women and men come into their own (whether through education or financial stability and willingness to speak out on political issues) they will make a difference. The elders will pass on, new ideas and concepts, along with a faster pace of education and knowledge about the world will come to the forefront. I'm optimistic about this point.

And in the meantime, we who are able to do so, must speak out, listen, mentor, teach, advise and offer guidance whenever we can to those who still struggle - whether here in the West or in regions abroad. I was raised to believe that a stellar education and communication skills were meant to be shared - as broadly as possible - in an educational format. It would be selfish to keep these skills to oneself. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this belief.

Thus, as we learn more about Islam through this discussion or in other venues, we are making our own contributions to those who have given up their homelands for better opportunities in the west. And just as it is up to them to make choices for themselves and their families which adhere to the acceptable rules in the societies to which they have immigrated, it is also incumbent upon those of us who came before them to offer as much guidance as possible.

Personally, I hope that as we progress with this discussion (or any other SN discussion which might be relevant), the participants share what they've learned with others - family, friends, business associates, neighbors, total strangers whom they meet in public or through volunteer efforts - in an effort to "reach out" and "communicate" as best one is able to do so and to bring about better understanding among people.

Last year, when my son, David, was posted in Iraq for 10 months, he knew that several of the SN forumns knew of his whereabouts and were praying for him and thinking good thoughts for his safely and that of his soldiers. That knowledge - which David shared widely and often with the soldiers whom he served as an Army Chaplain - brought great comfort to the troops. Upon his return to the USA for a two week home leave last December, David called his family first, took a long shower in my home, and sat down at this very same computer to thank the SN community for their support. It is this type of "outreach" which I believe we can all do with those who seem "different" to us, either due to their ethnic or religious backgrounds or beliefs, which are hard for us to understand initially, or any other reason which may register.

In the meantime, it is the responsibility of military, intelligence and civilian law enforcement to stop or curtail those individuals and/or groups around the world who wish to inflict terrorist mayhem on us. Let them do their work, as we do ours. And in the meantime, let's hope we can learn as much as possible about any newcomers, so that when we do have opportunities to interact, we will understand how best to do so to achieve positive results.

post. I give serious consideration to everything you say.

No, I am not near a large city at this time. In fact, I live in a small town of only about 2,000 souls, and we just put in a second stoplight, since for years we had only one in the whole county. We have one Pakistani family in town, and they certainly seem like they are working to fit in and abhorred the terrorist events as much as the rest of us did. The husband of the family is VERY involved in the community and a model citizen. One of the daughters is a nurse in our small hospital.

I'm afraid when I get into a discussion on the internet, however, not everyone reads as thoughtfully as you do, and I often get into controversy almost immediately because people like to read things that are short and sweet and don't challenge them. As soon as anything is challenging many get defensive and sometimes not very nice. I think most discussions end up being sort of a "cocktail party social visit" and that's all people want, whereas I want more out of conversation. I actually want the give-and-take and the learning. It's always a great pleasure to me when I do find someone, such as you, who not only hears what I'm saying, but answers it thoughtfully and fairly, with obvious experience and education, without making the discussion personal. But I find it is rare. In fact, I believe I will actually print out all your posts here and re-read them again in order to think more about what you've said. Thoughtful responses deserve thoughtful reading.

As far as I'm concerned, ideas and concepts should be discussed, and a little honest controversy is good for the brain cells. Our differences are actually what make the world a fascinating place for me, even at times when I may not appreciate those differences or they seem to threaten me.

And I hope you are right that the Muslim leadership is awakening and taking its religion back. It's a beautiful religion with beautiful ideals, but the way it has been kidnapped by the current dangerous crowd is a shame. I also believe that we can't really do anything about it, except do our jobs as you have so well described above, and the Muslim leadership has to take back its own. I only hope you are right, and that they actually will do so, and will begin to lead their people into a modern world of their own design.

My library still has not come up with the book, yet, so I have occupied myself, so far, with reading the postings in this discussion group. All of the postings have been very thoughtful and articulate. I hope my thoughts are fit to belong in the same discussion.

One issue that I believe needs to be addressed is that of power. The "religious leaders" in most Islamic communities around the world appear to be the authorities that control most of the aspects of the average Muslim's life. They have power.

Nobody gives up power without a struggle, and that struggle is now taking place as the West and its culture increase their interfacing with the Islamic world.

There was a time when Christian leaders had nearly similar control over the day to day lives and attitudes of their subjects. I remember in Sunday school, nuns proudly telling us kids that at the time of the Crusades (when the Church held considerable control over its subjects) anyone who died in the fight to reclaim Jerusalem would be guaranteed a place in heaven. We,as westerners, scoff at what is being told these suicide bombers (that they will go immediately to heaven, and have seventy virgins waiting for them), but several centuries ago we (Christians) were being fed that same stuff!

What happened to Christianity, and why did that change not occur in Islam as well?

I think the turning point in Christianity was when Martin Luther nailed that notice to the church wall in Germany. Saying in so many words, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." This start to the Reformation sent Christianity on a different path wherein "religious leaders" began to lose much of their power over the actions and thinking of the common man.

Islam has not had a Martin Luther, or if one has tried to emerge, he has not been effective.

Rich

Rich I disagree with you on the point that Christian Religious leaders do not control their flocks in this day and age.

Think about the religious right. The pastors tell them who to vote for from the pulpit. Think about the Pope - he advises his people on many issues.

All religious leaders have input into the daily life of their flocks.

Carolyn

Welcome,Rich, a new poster with inciteful thoughts on this subject as have been the other posts here.

When I was reading the 2nd chapter, I began to see what control Muhammad had when he transferred his community to Medina. The description of his deciding all things from small to large, his collection of all taxes, the forming of a military force and his adhering to God's word while settling disputes, reminded me of Solomon in the OT.

I don't believe that I learned anything about the Islamic faith or the occupation and upraising of the populations in the Middle East, Spain, Portugal,etc.d when I was in school. In fact, like Rich, the teachers pretty much believed that only Christians would go to heaven.

The description of Muhammed having a vision for the whole world which included the missions of each Muslim as an individual and as a member of a religious commuinity to realize and spread God's rule reminds me of the missionaries that are always out to save the world. "It was this vision that was to transform the tribes of Arabia and bring about a major world hisotrical and cultural transformation." What is so different here?? Haven't these visions been put forth by most of the religions in the world. And, in the end, isn't the whole premise about power and control??

Persian, I think that the article from today's Post pretty much says it all when it comes to needing to do something about Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.

MoutainRose, your feelings are definitely worth considering, although I disagree with some of it. I think that the Western world just didn't believe that anything like 9/11 could happen in our world. We are so far from understanding the feelings here of the Muslim world.

If only that energy that they put forth into terrorism could be harnessed for some good in this world.

Interesting that 'the world was divided into Islamic territory and the non-Islamic world. .Citizenship, taxation, and issues of war and peace were determined by religious belief. Muslims enjoyed full citizenship and paid certain taxes, while Jews and Christians(Peopl of the Book) were designated "protected people" and paid a special poll or head tax, in exchange for which there to be defended by the Muslim Military."

I guess that I don't see anything so different here with the Muslims doing what Muhammed and his successors said to do and the Crusaders following the rules and edicts of the Church.

We were posting about the same time so I didn't see you here until I returned from my telephone. Its so good to have you here with your pithy comments. Again, I say, in the end, this all about power and control. I can't imagine wanting to be in charge of this whole world but I guess some people and religions do. And, it goes on and on and will probably continue to do so for eons!

today about Wahhabism

Egyptian journalist's article on Wahhabism.

National Review Q&A of a self styled Wahhabism expert.

Wahhabism Goes Global

This is from an online magazine, The Globalist". This kind of article, using the widest of paint brushes, is scary!

Short bio of the author of above article

This author is a part of the same organization that includes John Esposito, our author , The Center for the study of Islam and Democracy.

ANN - IMO, the linked article simply explains what folks have known for some time, although the author uses the name "American Wahhabis," which is unusual for the general reader. Fallwell, Robertson and Franklin Graham have not been shy about their comments or their beliefs. And as far as I know, none of the three have gone out of their way to try to understand Islam on a deeper level or to interact with Muslim leaders, scholars or even the average Muslim-on-the-street to learn about issues which they condem.

The term "American Wahhabis" might strike the same cord as a reference to "American Nazis" - which are, unfortunately, alive and well in the USA or "White Supremists," which are featured occasionally in the press, but the average reader probably does not pay much attention to these extremists.

My sense is that although the term "American Wahhibis" is indeed unusual, it is also a clear signal for more Americans to learn about what is REALLY going on in the USA - from the Federal govt. level on down to the local levels and, once more information has been digested and understood, then make decisions about what to do (if anything), what to accept or what to speak out against.

Personally, I find it much more SCARY (to borrow your word) to know that there are folks like Fallwell, Robertson and Graham in the USA and that their followers are so adament about their right to speak out against "others" and "differences." Their rhetoric is NOT helpful to our country, our Democracy, or future generations who will most assuredly continue to live in a pluralistic society.

I mean when I say extremist fundamentalism is spreading all over the planet, in every corner of the world. It's almost as though with the threat of communism having taken a dive, people have to come up with new and intolerant ideas to cause discontent and fear, and the far religious right in the U.S. worries me a whole heck of a lot, especially with some of the powerful influence they have.

Still, I think in our pleuralistic society there will be checks and balances on any extremist groups, which is not the case that I can see on the Islamic extremists, and that worries me even more, since so far Falwell, et al have not been out bombing anything but merely spreading their intolerant views. Words are one thing to me; bombs and planes deliberately crashed into buildings are another.

But extremists can all be classified under the same general umbrella, I think.

"What happened to Christianity, and why did that same change not happen in Islam?" ---- I think it's a matter of time. Judaism is the oldest and probably the wisest of the monotheistic religions. Christianity is in the middle, and Islam is the youngest. Like I've said in another post, I liken Islam to a rebellious teen, Christianity to a late 20's/early 30's person, with Judaism being in a comfortable middle age.

Christianity had to learn the hard way, with Martin Luther and Calvin and all those who broke away because they felt the Church was headed in the wrong direction. It was a wake-up call that the Church needed. So was the non-cooperation they got from a lot of people, and the problems and damage that was caused by the missionaries to indiginous people all over the world, which they realized in retrospect. Islam will probably settle down too eventually. I think right now we are just stuck with living in it's teenage years of rebellion and muscle flexing, and I think all religions go through that, with a lot of damage caused as they grow up; especially the monotheistic religions because by their very nature of ONE GOD they tend to be more inflexible than polytheistic religions. Anyhow, that's my two cents.

By the way, nice to see you and Carolyn here.

. . . was quite interesting and enlightening in some ways; by that I mean that he gave a few more pieces of the puzzle that fit. I found this quote especially interesting: "I believe Balkan Islam represents a powerful Islamic force for interfaith reconciliation in the West and the world." --- I guess mainly because I don't know that much about the Balkans or Balkan Islam in particular.

It was also interesting to me that he is a Sufi, and the commentary he made about the way Sufism looks at the three monotheistic religions as worshiping the same God, just in different ways; which is something I've believed for a long time. I've read much about the Sufis and do find it a truly peace-loving and tolerant way of life, which has combined being in this world fully functional while at the same time being not of this world at all, and its beliefs appeal much to me even as a Catholic.

in the world but to call all Fundamentalists, Wahhabis, seemed a bit extreme. After reading the article a second time, I do better understand what the author is trying to point out and could agree with him. How sad to read that India is doing a similar cleansing of its Muslims. Are we all becoming puritanical? Its just too bad that we can't be more accomodating of a person's personal beliefs and practices. And, excited about the differences that they bring to our world!

I remember the first chapter of "Searching For Hassan" where the author describes the beginning of a holy evening with the cleansing fire jumping of the Zoarostians and how beautiful it seems. Traditions are so important to most of civilization. IMO, its how we define ourselves.

article was just using "wahhabis" as a metaphor? Sort of to make the point about this being a phenomenon in all parts of the world? I didn't take the term literally but understood it to be a metaphor. At least I hope that was the author's intention, because it would be extreme if he meant it literally.

Yes, a convenient metaphor. Still, it makes sense to try to understand what he is writing about. At least, we now know that this terrorism war will not be limited to just Christianity vs. Islam. There are other traditions that are unhappy about their faith's position in the world. I know lots of these things have been going on for years but I guess having an attachment to the internet has made them all go to the forefront of my mind.

Another Washington Post article on the influence of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and how many Muslims are working to overcome its influence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23367-2004Jun7.html

. . .religion and secularism in the state and in politics, and the various combinations of how they play out in real life and in real countries. According to this author, the combination of religion both in the state and in politics is the most volatile and violent combination of all. It also gives us some other countries in which this combination has happened, and it seems like the Middle East countries are not the only ones.

Can you tell from this article how the author defines "the state" and "politics"? I'm having a bit of trouble with that. When I look in the dictionary one of the definitions for "politics" is "competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership". I'm not clear on how that differs from "the state" since the state is always in competition to keep the power it already has. Any insights that would help clear this up for me? I think I know what the author is trying to say, but it isn't clear enough in my head to where I could explain it to someone else.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/Demerath.htm

The state is a legal institution created after the Thirty Years War 1618-1648 in Europe. There had been unending conflict over belief vs. actual rule. The "state" solution in 1648 (the Peace of Westphalia) was that if you lived on Catholic-ruled land, i.e. your "prince" adheres to Rome, you'd be Catholic or move out. And the opposite, of course, if you were a Protestant. Modern international law then emerged at that time as a law among states. The state was clearly defined as an entity that had 1)land ; 2)people ; 3)a ruler ; 4) sovereignty. The latter meant that the ruler on that land had "the last word" in any disputes within its confines, which meant he could chop your head off. (It still means that, see capital punishment). It is hardly a coincidence that the word "state" and "estate" (the medieval land holding) are esentially the same.

Polis is the ancient Greek word for the (city-) state. Politics refers to the competition for power and general interaction in the public sphere (the agora, or marketplace). One of Aristotle's major works is titled "Politics" and described that competition of process. One fun thing to know... in the Greek city state a person who failed to take any part in public affairs, interact with others in the agora, was called "idiot". Using that definition, the vast majority of us are...

PS: Not meaning to nit-pick the discussion leader here, but I would caution against the use of expressions like the "rise of Islam." The vast majority of Muslims are not rising at all. Wahabism, the sect involved in the founding of Saudi Arabia is a tiny fragment. Always keep in mind that the great majority of Muslims are nowhere near the Middle East. We have been drawn into a struggle AMONG Muslims about how Islamic societies shall deal with modernization. And the Islamic societies differ enormously among them, sometimes more so than they differ from the Western world.

TOM - your P.S. makes an excellent point. Thanks for your clarification.

Although there seem to be a few more articles in the press recently about this issue, overall there is still much misunderstanding about how the majority of Muslims feel on a global scale about recent events. I talk about this issue often with former colleagues at the University of Maryland and those posted abroad, who often are distressed about the level of misunderstanding.

. . it will help me to a better understanding of the article.

I also agree with you about having been drawn into a struggle AMONG Muslims; and in my opinion they are the only ones who can ultimately solve their struggle. But the fall-out from that struggle can be catastrophic for the rest of us, and it needs to be handled as far as it crosses into and endangers our lives. I don't envy our leaders or our diplomats in the touchy/sensitive decisions they will have to make while this is going on.

I finally got my book and have started reading. Yay! After reading four prefaces(four prefaces?), an introduction, and much of the first chapter I have a couple of questions that if I had the opportunity, I would pose to the author.

The first is, because the book was written before 9/11, if he were to write it now (oh no, another preface!) would he adopt the same benign position on Islamic fundamentalism that he appears to be taking in what I have read so far in the book?

Secondly, he appears to be saying that all religions have their fundamentalists, why are we coming down so hard on Muslims? Well, it wasn't a group of militant Methodists that hijacked those planes, cut the throats of the flight attendants and pilots, and succeeded in killing more Americans in one day than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Here's where I wonder if Islam may be an obstacle to progress and understanding in the one-fifth of the world population that follows it tenets. Prior to Islam, and even in the early days of its spread, the world of the middle east was an intellectual greenhouse. Arab art, literature, poetry ,science, astronomy, mathematics, and architecture were a beacon for the rest of the "civilized" world. What are they bringing to the table now? Backwardness, violence, fear, oppression of women, jihads, suicide bombers. What has changed since the days of the flowering of Arab culture? Has Islam brought them to this? I don't know. The evidence is only circumstantial. Some might say, using Cold War rhetoric, that it is the fault of "Western Imperialism." Maybe it's neither. Maybe it's both.

Like I said, before, I'm only on chapter one, and not even finished with that, but I hope the author answers my questions as I read on.

Another question that I have is : Why is Islam so successful in obtaining converts? Organized Christian missions have been active in Africa, and Indonesia for decades, but both of those heavily populated areas are now predominantly Muslim. There must be some appeal that Christianity can't offer. What is it?

Rich

and interesting questions, some I've had myself, except that you have expressed them better. I certainly don't have the answers, but I sure hope Esposito, et al, have some.

RICH - "Prior to Islam, and even in the early days of its spread. . . ."

In reponse to your comment (above) here's a link to general info about the establishment of Islam in the 7th century and its Golden Age (8th - 13th centuries under the Abbaysid dynasty)

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/themes/goldenages/islam.cfm

There indeed have been some fine scholars and scientists but, unfortunately, they are not well known in North America, unless one is an area specialist (academic or diplomat) or delves into the contemporary news of the region as a matter of individual curiosity.

Regarding conversion to Islam, here is a link to an indepth look at one Christian's conversion. The author presents not only a personal rationale, but also Biblical references, comparisons of Biblical figures, etc. It's well-written and offered in a gesture of sharing how one Christian from a devout family could reach a personal decision to convert to Islam.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/webmaster.htm

PERSIAN, The Golden Age of art, science, literature was indeed the 8th to the 13th centuries. Islam began in the 7th century. Therefore, the Abbaysid dynasty developed and flourished well into Islamic times. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Now I am even more puzzled as I try to understand what happened to their promising culture.

Rich

There is more than one way to kill freedom. A fundamentalist church group was stopped from putting a monument in the park in Casper, WY which would glorify the killing of the gay U of WY student.

I just spent quite a long time replying to all these posts and my electricity recycled, went off, and I lost all my comments. Will try to recall what I said and come in here later today. Sorry about that!!

Ann I have been interested in this discussion since I first saw it posted...and today I decided I just had to stop by and see what was going on....

I have been thrilled and that is the word about the posts here..they are so lucid, sane and meaningful ...and since my hearing is just about left me ..these discussions are the only way I can converse with others about things I find important, interesting and necessary.

How can I tell you without becoming emotional that I appreciate the thoughts and feelings expressed here. In order for the world to survive people need to care ...perhaps because I was raised in a family that was mixed..and I laugh at that in some ways. Both of my parents were Christian ..one Catholic and one Methodists but I can tell you it might as well been heathens since each side seemed to feel the other wasnt fully Christian..how times have changed ...but one thing it did give me was the understanding that we should care about others , their faith, thier background, their nationality etc.

My friends came from such a varied background as did their beliefs and ways...The posters here have expressed so many of my own beliefs it is almost like finding a home. and I appreciate more than I can say that you have shared your thinking and your hopes ..anna

After this weekend is over I will have some time to read and hope to be able to contribute based on what I read.

My "courtesy granddaughter" graduates this weekend and I am hosting a graduation celebration on Sunday afternoon...have to finish altering her dress and bake a cake plus of course prepare the goodies..AFTER that I will take a few hours and relax and read..........anna

. . . I think we are all looking forward to your contributions to this discussion.

Mahlia, I found the article about the Christian gent who converted to Islam fascinating. Here is a quote that he made which I think is true of most of us regarding regligions, sometimes even true of the adherents themselves, and certainly by those outsiders looking in: "I realized that I had been making the mistake of judging Islam by the behavior of some of its more unsavory nominal adherents rather than by the theological and moral teachings of the religion itself."

Based on that quote, however, and further reading of the article, this gent based his conversion on the same sort of judgment about his own Catholicism. From his writing I get the distinct feeling he did not really understand Catholicism or the Trinity, and I admit that it is a VERY difficult concept.

Be that as it may, I don't think it matters as long as someone is a sincere searcher, and it sounds like he is. I truly do believe that just as human being have different languages, God speaks to us in different ways through different religions, and what is not clear in one might be crystal clear in another. Apparently the ONE GOD belief was made crystal clear to him in the language of Islam where he couldn't quite "see it" in his own Christianity. Nevertheless, it is there in Christianity just as distinctly to those of us who can read the language.

I also feel that religious people who are truly "open" have no problem accepting the fact that God does work in mysterious ways and it is not up to us to second-guess His plan or the language He uses to any particular sincere searcher. I also believe that eventually all the religiouns will begin to see more of their similarities than their differences, and that God is God no matter from what perspective we see Him, since I also believe that religion is merely "an expression" of our belief in God, and that expression varies with the culture and its history. At the point of that understanding, hopefully, religous strife will end.

Am I being optimistic? Yup, in a way, but I don't think that sort of wisdom will come about for another 1000 years or so. Since I feel our present time is just a single link in a long, long chain, it's also something I don't really worry about. LOL

Well, I want to welcome Tom S. and Annafairto this discussion. I am sure your comments will be of value with helping us to understand this faith.

Glad you are reading the book, Rich7 and know that there will be many questions arising.:<) I am just getting into the last half of Chap.2, so don't worry about where you are.

Persian and MountainRose

Thanks for those links. I read all of them and now am feeling like I know too much too soon. I have bookmarked all.

Historicaly speaking, TomS

has brought to us a simple explanation of "politics" and "state" plus a suggestion that I not use the phrase, "the rise of Islam" which I definitely feel is the situation in the world at the moment. We certainly are being made more aware of the world of Islam since the U.S. went into Afganistan and Iraq. So, for many of us, Islam is becoming more visible. Maybe that's what I should have used-visible instead of rising.

Persian

The article or link that you put in here with the short explantions of the different areas of Islamic history is also something that I will keep in my bookmarks.

Kidsal, I am trying to figure out your post as I am not sure what your point is. Want to put that in a different way??

Annafair,

We will see you next week after your very busy weekend. Enjoy yourself!

Okay, I am now dealing with the paragraph on Pg.33 which says:

Islamic law provided the blueprint of the good society, the Islamic ideal. The Sharia or path of God was therefore a set of divinely revealed general principles, directives, and values from which human beings developed detailed rules and regulations which were in turn to be applied by judges(qadis) in Sharia courts. IMHO, this description sounds very much like the Judaic approach to law. How about you?

Then come the 5 pillars:

1. The profession of Faith(shahada)

2.Prayer(salat) five imes a day at fixed times plus attendance at the Firday congregational prayer.(This reminds me of the ringing of the Angelus bells in the old Catholic church)

3.Almsgiving-another Christian and Judaic practice

4.Fasting (sawm)during the month of Ramadan--another practice,during Lent, of many Christians.

5.An annual pilgrimage(haji)to Mecca-once in a lifetime,if one has the health and financial resources to do so.

That last one, if possible for a Muslim, seems like the pilgramages made to Rome and Israel by those who can afford the trip.

So, as it says in this book, Mohammed was really trying to turn the world population around and back to their duty to the one God.

But the author tells us not "to lose sight of the rich mystical and spiritual tradition(Sufism) which nourished the lives of Muslims and accounts for the effective spead of Islam thoughout much of the world.

I apologize, but I don't have the book... used previous Esposito books as required reading in my Middle East course, though. Does he really talk about "Islamic fundamentalism" - literally? As a general rule scholars of Islam discourage the use of that term. It leads to very inapt analogies with other faiths, and more importantly, it betrays a faulty understanding of Islam. All of Islam is essentially "fundamentalist." The Qu'ran is the word of God, not of apostles. There are no priests as go-betweens. Imams and mullahs are teachers, just as rabbis are. The radicals such as BinLaden are for that reason best called Islamists, or simply extremists, etc etc... Note that even the words Islam and Muslim are explicitly absolutist and don't lend themselves to being more or less "fundamental": Islam means "submission" (to God); and Muslim = "one who submits".

In starting one of the points in the 1st chapter, the author explains his position on the use of the word "fundamentalism", saying that it conjures up too many Christian and Western memories. He uses the term but only in referring to what he wants to call Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism rather than of Islamic fundamentalim. He finds these terms more fitting general terms.

Ann,if you meant our awareness, then we agree, of course.

As for why Islam spreads well: Because of what Ann re-summarized, it's extremely simply to accept. You commit in good faith before witnesses to adhere to and practice those "five pillars," and that's it: You now are a Muslim. Next, in many huge populations, esp. in South Asia, but even some areas of Africa, there are tribal distinctions which set up caste systems. In Islam there is powerful insistence on the equality of all before God. That's very attractive teaching (and practice) to those who are at the lower end of the social hierarchies! That may help even if you're a minority person in Detroit or South Los Angeles.

I was responding clumsely to Rich7 statement that there are fundamentalists in all religions, but the Methodists haven't killed anyone. Perhaps some Christian religions haven't killed people (lately) but any effort to kill thought can be just as dangerous.

Kidsal, I understood what you were saying, and I have to agree with you. Many (perhaps most) of the cases of man's inhumanity to man throughout history have been conducted in the name of some god or other. Leaders seem to find it easier to commit violence against others when they believe, or convince others to believe, that their actions are divinely inspired.

The founding fathers of the United States were alert to the dangers of a church and state alliance, and worked to keep that separation.

There appears to be a different mindset where Islam is the predominant religion. On the day after the details of the interim government in Iraq was announced, my local paper, the Providence Journal, ran the story as their headline. Under the headline was a photo of thousands of Iraqis marching through the streets. I thought, "Well, they're celebrating." When I read the caption to the photo, I understood the real reason why they were filling the streets. They were protesting the fact that the interim government would be a secular one.

A different mindset.

Rich

But, even though we are of a different mindset, here in the U.S., I still don't understand why the combination of state and religion for the ME won't work?? Its what the people there are used to having. And, also, it may be the only way that they can back their new government.

ANN, I didn't understand your posting at first. I thought you meant the pronoun "me" when you said: ...for the ME won't work. Now I get it. You used ME to mean Middle East. I'm a little slow this morning.

When I look at the photo of all those people in the street, I ask myself, "Did each one of those people independently, sitting in their own home think,'Hey, I want a government where the mullahs and imams are in charge. I long for a government like that of the Taliban in Afganistan. I think I will walk out into the street and protest.'"

I believe that it's more likely that they were whipped into a frenzy in the local mosque by the local mullahs and imams, and turned loose into the streets in a foaming rage. I still believe it's as much about power as it is about religion.

The American founding fathers came from European countries that had state religions. They were "used" to that sort of government, but they saw the opportunity to make the break, and they did.

Secular democracy is a noble experiment in a predominantly Islamic country, but it has to be tried. The alternatives are not very pleasant.

Rich

. . . Charles Hill, who is a distinguished fellow in international security studies at Yale and affiliated with the Hoover Institution and Baylor University, as well as a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service. He served in various posts in Whashington and abroad relating to China and the Middle Ease, was an aide to Secretaries of State Kissinger, Haig and Shultz, and a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

"Islam, justifiably can be considered a faith that has fostered peace and civilization. But like some other religious, Islam has, during certain periods of history and in certain parts of the globe, been part of an environment where evildoers can burrow and breed. The higher levels of Islam have not yet displayed adequate doctrinal defenses against this, nor have they credibly condemned it. There has been a deafening silence from the clerical hierarchy in most countries, including those considered to be moderate. The Friday sermons in mosques across the Middle East and in Europe and North America as well, have ranged from a pro-Taliban line to a transparent apologia for the terrorists at best; i.e., what they did was bad but understandable and no worse than the "terrorism' conducted by the U.S. and Israel."

That pretty much sums up what I think also. Hopefully what the ME countries will begin to realize now that there have been attacks even within Saudi Arabia, is that they have let a monster loose not only on us, but upon themselves, and hopefully they themselves will slay that monster. If not, I think the U.S. will have to do exactly what it did in WWII when the ugly monster called Hitler raised its head in the midst of Europe. I can't see any other alternative, frankly, and a foggy notion for peace and idealism will not be able to solve this problem.

. . . particular quote comes: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/022/hill.html I think the man says some enlightening things, although I also question some others.

If anyone has access to the latest issue of Vanity Fair there is an article that goes along with this reading. I checked to see if it could be accessed via a link and it doesnt seem that is possible.

The information was quite chilling for this reader. anna

strikes a resonant chord with me. I still have not heard a heartfelt apology from Muslim leaders in AMERICA for what extremists in their religion did on 9/11. There have been many half-apologies, however every sentence that appears to start with an apology has a "but" in it somewhere. After the "but" there is a statement blaming America for some policy or action that might have caused this to happen.

Why aren't American Muslim "religious leaders" bringing their people into the streets to protest against 9/11, the suicide bombing of civilians, the beheading of Nicolas Berg, the killing, mutilation and public display of the bodies of American civilian workers in Iraq?

We hear mostly silence with an occasional tepid statement of regret, followed by a "but."

Rich

RICH - the last two paragraphs in your post above would be a terrific question to send to the Editors of your local newspaper. As more articles are appearing in the American press about Islam, a sincere question like yours deserves a sincere response from the American Muslim leadership. If you live in a large city which is host to an Islamic mosque(s), you might also consider sending the question in a letter to the Imam. You might also consider sending the question to one of the major news networks. From perosnal experience, I know that the media listens and responds, if you get their attention

Over the years, I've posed several questions to Tom Brokaw, anchor of NBC's World News Tonight. He's answered each one promptly. Several years ago, I encouraged our local newspaper (The Washington Post) to include articles on the major Muslim holiday of Ramadan, and follow-up articles throughout the year on topics of interest to the large Muslim community in this area.

And as a participant in this discussion, you might pose your question to the author of Islamic Threat - Professor John Esposito at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Here's a link which includes his email address: http://cmcu.georgetown.edu/faculty.html

ANN, participating friends, I'm coming late to this discussion. The book is in our library system, I have ordered it and, since there are no holds, it should be available fairly soon.

I have also ordered a copy of Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: The Egyptian Experience by Caryle Murphy, 2002. The author was the Washington Post's Cairo bureau chief for five years. I saw her on C-SPAN (I think it was) some months ago and was very impressed with the range of her knowledge and personal experience, and her objective presentation.

I am anxious to see whether Professor Esposito's book contains basic historic information about the origin of Islam and its expansion under the Caliphs after Mohammed's death. I believe this is a quintessential prerequisite to our even beginning to understand the tragedy of 9/11.

I hope that you will find the book as interesting as I have. (I'm only up to chapter three. My library was slow in coming up with the book for me.)

Chapter three points to one of the main reasons for Arab resentment of the West- The 1920 partitioning of the Ottoman empire after WWI. France and Great Britain were handed colonies in the Middle East that were almost randomly carved out of the old Ottoman empire. The treatment of the Islamic people in those newly defined countries amounted to an almost master/servant relationship. If there was any Muslim suspicion of the West before the partition, it was confirmed during and afterward.

I know that there is another book group discussing the actions and decisions of leaders after WWI. I wonder if those in the discussion group are aware that certain decisions taken then, over eighty years ago, could have helped create the climate and series of events that led to the 9/11 attack.

Rich

Your insights here will mean the discussion is progressing well.

Rich7

The other discussion will not start until July 15th and I am going to be a part of it. I have the book and like you, I had to look ahead and see what happened after WWI to the Ottoman Empire. And, as you say, parts were just chopped apart and given to England and France but what that book says about the citizens of that area which we now call Iraq is that there were no Iraqis; history, religion, geography pulled the people apart, not together. Here's link to the statistics of Iraq and how it was made into a country for Great Britain to control and why. OIL, Oil, oil!!! Short History of Iraq

And a short piece from the book, Paris 1919, says:The Arab world as a whole never forgot its betrayal and Arab hostility came to focus on the example of Western perfidy nearest at hand, the Zionist presence in Palestine. Arabs also remembered the brief hope of Arab unity at the end of the WWI. After 1945, those resentments and that hope continued to shape the Middle East."

Thank you, ANN and RICH.

RICH, the book you mentioned is Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan. As ANN said, the discussion will start on July 15. I too will participate.

That article is quite chilling!

Annafair

The article in Vanity Fair??? What date was that article written?? If you 'google" using Vanity Fair article concerning whatever it concerned, you may be able to find it quoted somewhere else by another news source. For example, I did google using "Vanity Fair articles concerning terrorism and came up with quite a few reprints of old Vanity Fair articles on other sites. Why don't you try that and see what happens??

Sorry not to be here for so long but I have had company all this weekend and hate to leave my hostess duties. They are such super people, my visitors!!

Expansion and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

Rich said:

"Secular democracy is a noble experiment in a predominantly Islamic country, but it has to be tried. The alternatives are not very pleasant."

It is being tried with great difficulty in one of the largest, namely Turkey. Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, gave it a secular constitution, even forbade traditional dress, and he imposed secular education. It "took" in urban Turkey, but less so in rural. It came at a total breakdown point after WWII -- the utter bankruptcy of the Ottomans. The Turkish army has had to step in again and again to prevent civil war, and keeps the secular state in power with an iron hand. NATO and the desire to join EU have played a role in that too. It's extremely touchy, even though it is the most nearly Europeanized of the ME countries -- it is partly in Europe geographically!

Personally I think the idea that Muslims are going to have to buy Jefferson sooner or later is outlandish. How about us having to learn to live with people who govern themselves differently?

I agree with your assessment of the West learning to live with differently governed people. As long as we can keep the wheels of commerce and globalization turning, why not? Were we all alike when the Silk Road was thriving?? Were we all alike when ships sailed between England and Istanbul, trading goods on a regular basis??? Why do we all have to be alike?? Why can't we appreciate diversity and go on our way??

I just finished doing a search and reading quite a few different sites on the Moors who were African Muslims, and am just amazed at what they accomplished in Spain before being overtaken and destroyed by Christians.

What sent me on the search was doing one on the maps of the Ottoman Empire and realizing that the Moors were part of all that history.

Ah, well, guess I will get back to the third chapter of the book and read on.

My responsibilities are over and very successfully and meaningful ...so last evening after everyone left I started reading..have only read the prefaces but will continue..have to say ..they sound a bit ominious to me...anna

Don't forget to consider the questions in the header while you are reading.

Everyone

And, note that there are maps for different parts of the history of Islam in the links, too.

The more I read, the more discouraged I become about the problems between Islam and Christianity. And, after yesterday's car bombing that killed 13 foreigners plus the kidnapping of the man from the US with promises that he will treated as the prisoners were treated in the Iraqi prisons, I am not very hopeful about the ME or the peace process.

Here are a couple of links to sites about the Muslims and Spain that I thought were very interesting.

Muslim Spain and European Culture

The Moors

And here's a surprising link to an article about

Moors and Christians:Spain's most explosive fiesta

This link takes you to maps of Spain, in diffent times, with how it was split between the Chrisitians and Moors. The divisions of Spain

Everything I have read leads me to believe there is no solution ..when a mother tells her son not to return home alive since she expects him to be a martyr ....that chills me ...the article in Vanity Fair is in this months publication. I will try your suggestion and see if I can find a link to it..the future doesnt look too bright ..anna

Re. the interest in Spain and Moors: apparently large numbers of Jews went to Spain with the Moors, and stayed there when most Moors left. When the Inquisition occurred in the Middle Ages, they had to disguise their Jewishness, and even eat pork publicly to "prove" that. They became known as "marranos" (swine). Today there are many families in places like New Mexico, USA in which "weird" rituals are practiced, and explained to the young people as "family tradition." Those are Jewish rituals thus maintained "secretly". Acc. to an item I found on the Web, the actress Rita Moreno acknowledged that her family ware marranos, and as well as Fidel Castro.

TOM - I'd be interested in a couple of examples of the "weird rituals" you mention in your post above. Do you have a link to share with us?

It's also interesting to note that there has been a Jewish presence in China since the 8th century (see link below). During a visiting professorship in 1985, I had a chance to visit buildings which over the centuries have been Jewish synagogues AND Islamic mosques, visit with Chinese Jews (several of whose family members were my students), and their neighbors, who claimed to be descendents of Elias Sasoon, who established the Iraqi Sasoon family in Shanghai. Equally interesting (at least for me) was an opportunity to meet descendents of Persian Jews who had intermarried with Iraqi Jews. In general, their appearances reflected that of typical Asians, while their spoken dialects in Farsi and Arabic were definitely those of Southwestern Iran and Southern Iraq. Most startling for me - but certainly a pleasure once I recovered from my surprise - was to hear a Chinese gentleman in his late 80's speaking Hebrew. He laughingly told me that he was a graduate of Columbia University and was "the only one who got along with the two Arab Muslim boys" in his class!

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Jews.html

NOTE: Photos of the buildings which have at different times been Jewish synagogues and Islamic Mosques can be seen in the SN Travel section under "Travel in China." They are linked in the heading under "Mahlia's China Pictures."

Here's a link to the Marranos and their 'weird' or 'secret' practices which are just Jewish traditions with changes that have happened over the years.

Secret Jews

And here's a link to the Marranos of New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado.

The Marranos

General principles of Bedouin Government
It must be borne in mind that at Mecca there was not, before the establishment of Islam, any Government in the common sense of the term.
No supreme authority existed whose mandate must be put into execution. Each tribe formed a republic governed by opinion; and the opinion or the aggregate tribes, who chanced for the time to be acting together, was the sovereign law. There was no recognized exponent of the popular will; each tribe was free to hold back from that which was clearly decreed by the rest......
Honour and revenge supplied the place of a more elaborate system. The former prompted the individual, by the desire of upholding the name and influence of his clan, to a compliance with the general wish; the latter provided for the respect of private right, by the unrelenting pursuit of the injurer.
In effect, the will of the majority did form the general rule of action for all, although there was a continual risk that the minority might separate and assume an independent, if not antagonistic, course

. The law of revenge, too, though in such a society perhaps unavoidable, was then, even as it is now, the curse of Arabia.

Do you think that this is still a problem with the People of the Quran??

It has been some time since I last visited Senior Net but I wanted to see what was happening in this discussion. I also wanted to call your attention to an article in the New Yorker which I found most disturbing. It is about Israeli settlers and while this is not the immediate subject of this discussion, I find it interesting to compare fanatics on both sides of the issue. This link will take you to the article.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact2_a

This type of information is indeed chilling and gives one great pause. There was an article in our local Washington Post recently about the "furor" in the American press about the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad and to what extent military and civlian leaders could approve coercive (i.e. inhumane)treatment. One individual whom the author spoke to wanted to know "what all the fuss was about from the Americans. Prisoners in Israel have been subjected to this treatment for years and no one complains." I remember years ago that the prison system in Iran was rampant with rumors about similar treatment. AND that particular system had been set-up by an earlier generation of "experts" from the CIA. Tonight's Post includes a side-bar regarding charges being filed against an American Air Force investigator, who was responsible for investigating charges againsts a Syrian interpreter at Guantanamo who was alleged to have mishandled classified information. The AF investigator was himself charged with raping and sodomizing children as young as 11. That behavior could certainly be directed to incarcerated individuals who are without protection from family, human rights personnel or judicial authorities. An ugly world!

Persian (#109):

My info started with an excellent Arizona Highways article many years ago, about a specific family, its life and grandmother stories. Since then I have been crosschecking it with various sources, colleagues, etc but as it's outside my field, no formal sources. Thus I'm very pleased that Ann got me off the hook with her excellent stuff. It should be clear from those, that the "weird" rituals were actually normal Jewish practices.

Ann (#112)

I wonder about "Bedouin" rule in Mecca and Medina. The very tone of the material you cite makes me rather skeptical of its assertions. These were early urban communities; Bedouins are even today still trying to remain nomadic. I think you might find other very different descriptions of life in those two ancient trading centers. I'm not about pursue it ... more current fish to fry.

Shalom... and Salaam.

Here's a link to the book from which I took those words: William Muir's Life of Mohamet

I thought that it seemed credible.

Am still reading the third chapter and its so convoluted that I am having a hard time trying to comment on it. It seems that the story of the Muslims and the secularism plus Westernism is really extremely involved with leaders as far back as 1891 were still in a quandry as to where to lead the different countries. Would they choose Modernism but want to bring Islam up to date or would they stick with their religious leaders and reject any modernism?? It seems that the elite of the countries wanted to accept modernity but to keep their Islamic faith plus have a representative and constitutional government. They had wonderful schools and those who took advantage of educating themselves were going to be those who would run the government. But isn't that true of any country which is evolving into a representative government??

Where is everyone in their reading?? I am on pg. 53, Chap 3 and thought it might be nice if we all stayed together, at least on the same chapter. For instance,

Rich7

Are you still reading Chap 3 and am I wrong in my comment of today?? Did you have the same understanding?

Annafair

What chapter are you up to now and what do you think about what your are reading?

Traude

Have you deserted us?? Haven't heard from you in quite awhile.

Thanks for the link, Georgehd. Hope you can join us,too.

Persian,

Are you still in the process of moving? How are you able to use your computer?

Ann, I have just moved on from Chapter 3. It was interesting, but it had to be studied more than read.

To your point about the Iraqi schools putting out graduates who will run the country, I direct you to the latest issue of Time mag. There is a story in that issue wherein the reporter interviews this year's class of graduates from Baghdad U. All the males who were interviewed said that their goal is to get OUT of Iraq. They may come back at some later date when things settle down, but right now the objective is to jump ship.

The women graduates had a different answer. Tradition in their society has it that an unmarried woman cannot leave her family. Therefore, their objective was to remain in Iraq until one of the males who left comes back to marry her and then take her out of the country, preferably to the West.

Where are the Thomas Jeffersons, John Adams, James Madisons, etc?

My local news bulletin service just ran a story on the conviction of the Imam of the largest mosque in Ohio. His name is Faway Damra. During the trial, videos were shown of him raising money for Islamic Jihad. The jury was also shown a video of him telling a crowd that "Terrorism and terrorism, alone, is the path to liberation."

This is not some wild eyed fanatic on a street in Iraq. This is the Imam of the largest mosque in Ohio.

He won't be getting my "Thomas Jefferson" award.

Rich

ANN, no no, I'm still here. Three books I ordered have come into the library,and I hope the Islamic Threat is among them. I'll hurry there first thing tomorrow.

My thesis, written ages ago, had to do with the Political and Cultural Relationship between the Roman-Italian and the Arabic-Islamic World in the Middle Ages. A brief history of Muhammed and early Islam, the faith he founded, may be helpful. I'll dig it up, if that's all right.

Yes, I agree that Chapter 3 needs to be studied. When I mentioned the schools that were founded in the ME, I was talking about the 19th Century schools founded earlier, and referring to the author's history of Jamal al-Afghani who was born and educated in Iran and then in British India and who taught the Muslims from Egypt to India to arise from their lethargy and reclaim their God-ordained purpose and identity.. He taught at al-Azhar University, the oldest Islamic learning center and at "Dar al-Ulum, a new college that incorporated a modern curriculum to to prepare Ashar gratuates for government positions." This was before 1900 as this man lived from 1838-97.

And then there was Muhammad Abduh who championed legal and educational reform to improve the status of Muslim Women. Abduh lived from 1849 to 1905. So, am I misunderstanding the author's point here?? Is he not pointing out to his readers that the ME countries (or at least, some their elite citizens) wanted to become nationalist and independent of the British, the Dutch, the French?

And, didn't this all happen before the worldly power, OIL, raised its ugly head??? I looked up the entry of the power of oil in my copy of "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin and the author there gives 1900 as the beginning of the oil wars, starting in Persia(Iran)>

Traude

Yes, I certainly think that some of your findings from your paper would add to this most interesting chapter. Please do look for it.

At the turn of the 20th century, oil was discovered in Iran, which led to a new battle between Great Britain and Russia. Great Britain won a 60-year oil concession in the Persian Gulf in 1901. Rising foreign influence and corrupt leadership gave way to public demands for constitutional government. The first Majles (legislature) drafted a liberal constitution in 1906, but Russia assumed control of Iran in around 1913.

Although neutral during World War I, Iran was the site of several battles between Russian and British forces over oil fields. The British presence came to an end in around 1923 when Iranian Cossack commander Reza Khan established an independent government with himself as prime minister. The legislature elected him shah two years later, and he began a broad program of Westernization and infrastructural improvements. The Sunni Muslim population was forced to wear Western-style hats instead of traditional fezzes, which caused violent riots by the clergy. Reza Shah's wife and daughters appeared in public without veils, and soon after, most women abandoned theirs

I am still with you.HAve had a busy week. My courtesty granddaughter from across the street graduated from HS and I hosted a party for her..of course baking the cake and fixing all the goodies..then my 11 year old granddaughter "graduated" from the 5th grade and this weekend my 8 year old grandson has a birthday AND I now have a new computer ..and it took 3 days for my son to come over when he could and set it up for me...SO I am ready to return to the book although I think events in the world and the news probably are more relavent to the question Myth of reality? Seems reality wins at this point in time...anna

Ann, You asked if the author is pointing out that Arab countries wanted to become nationalistic. I remember 1956 as a time when I became extremely interested in world events.

A number of world shaping events took place that year, principal amoung them were the Hungarian revolution against the Soviet Union and Egypt's seizure of the Suez Canal. Egypt's Nassar was a master of playing East against West in the cold war. He instilled pride in arabs throughout the Middle East by thumbing his nose against Britain and France when he took over the canal and got away with it.

I remember American media playing up the emergence of "arab nationalism" and "pan arabism" in the Middle East. Nassar, allied Egypt with Syria and Yemen forming the United Arab Republic. The Middle East was finding its own way, free of colonialism we were told. This all came apart with the 1967 War.

Here's the part where I give my opinion. (This is, after all, a site for expressing opinions.) I think the rise of what the Western press called arab nationalism and pan arabism was really a rise in arab pride. The Ottoman Empire had been in decline since the 17th century, finally to be broken up completely after WWI. Arabs found not much to be proud of in the eyes of the world, especially in the face of an ascendant West. Nassar's apparent successes against the old colonial powers gave arabs a person and perhaps even a cause to rally behind. Again, those hopes evaporated following the 1967 Arab Israeli-war.

Aside from the prosperity brought to a few by oil, the countries of the Middle East have been suffering from a "third world" complex, and are looking for someone to lead them out. They appear to be looking into the mosques for their savior. (Opinion only.)

Rich

ANN, yes, Islamic Threat was among the books waiting for me at the library. The thesis is on hand as well. A weekend of reading lies ahead.

RICH, you have an excellent point and I'll get back to it.

Sorry I've been absent from this discussion for so long. My son leaves for Afghanistan tomorrow and I'm deep into packing and the logistsics of our move from Maryland to NC at the end of the month.

I've enjoyed reading the posts and appreciate the comments and (to borrow a phrase from Rich) opinions. Indeed, Nasser was a light in a dark world for the Arabs; Arab pride was uplifted by his rejection of the colonial powers. Unfortunately, Anwar Sadaat did not enjoy the same popularity in the Arab world, although he was very popular in the West. Interesting that neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabic was represented at the recent G-8 summit in Georgia, but Jordan's King Abdullah seemed uplifted enough to speak publicly about "having hope for the future."

As we see, the atrocities continue in the Middle East; Paul Johnson's barbaric death today, and continued attacks on coalition forces, as well as the senseless inclusion of innocent civilians in the suicide bombings. It's a sad time for the region, while also being a time of hope for the future.

I'm hopeful - but NOT overly optimistic - about the ability of the new Iraqi Army and police and security forces to bring about some semblance of normalcy to the area post June 30th. And it is certainly interesting to observe that Saudi Arabia seems to have broken through its daze and recognized that terrorists are indeed active inside the country with the financial support of prominent citizens. There have been rumors in the Arab press in the past couple of days that Egypt's President Mubarak is on the verge of firing most (if not all) of his Minissters, so that is something to watch also.

RE an earlier comment about the Bedouin. Remember that the bedouin are NOT all the same in various regions throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. There are clear tribal distinctions (similar if not identical to those of Native Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some bedouin continue to follow their nomaadic lifestyles nd have no particular interest in settling in one place; others include clans within the tribal systems which have settled - or who may travel at certain periods of the year only; and yet others (particularly those in Central Asia) combine both well settled and nomadic communities within the same collectives. Bedouin behavior is also very much a state of mind, an orientation towards freedom of movement and tribal jurisdiction that is not prevalent among the more educated and settled communities. Mention bedouin to an urban Egyptian and he/she raises eyebrows. Mention bedouin to a Pashtun in the Northern Frontier tribal regions of Central Asia and they grasp their weapons tighter, keep a close watch on their herds, and maintain a close eye on the weather to determine where the bedouin are in their annual migrations.

Hello MAHLIA. Good to see you here. Just read your post.

And was immediately reminded of Caravan and Michener's description of such annual migrations in Afghanistan.

Have not had my first cup of coffee but will be back later.

I have been re-reading CARAVANS and flagging the descriptions of the geography and the bedouin migrations. Even in the earlier period in which the book is set, the bedouin leadership is contemplating a future in which they will settle, invest in land and reduce their migratory patterns. Yet the fierceness of the tribes continues in full-fledged ways without undue attention (or adherence) to the government leadership. Some things just never change.

Although there has been a heavy focus on Al Qaeda throughout the occupation/liberation by Coalition Forces, I worry about a resurgence of the Taliban presence and their evil and barbaric practices (especailly towards women).

"The Wind and the Lion". Does anyone recall that movie? Apparently this isn't the first time the U.S.A. has had unpleasantries with the Arab world. This one happened during Teddy Roosevelt's time, and I loved the line he gave while talking to his daughter, about "great men" often having more in common with their enemies than with their own kind. I do believe the part played by Sean Connery was as a Bedouin tribal chief. One can get a little bit of insight into the fierceness and also the swift justice that to us, seems so barbaric, and the attitude of "winner takes all".

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, and for a male it seems like a more "manly" life than carrying a briefcase to and from the office on a commuter train. Too bad it just seems that life is a see-saw affair, when the man is "up" the female is all too often beaten down. Why we can't all be "up", including children of both sexes, is still a mystery to me.

The Wind and the Lion is one of my favorite films, as is Lawrence of Arabia. I've often wondered how much (if any) historical information was given to Sean Connery (in the former) and Alex Guiness and Anthony Quinn (in the latter), who played the Arab roles. I also wonder if they had Arab consultants onsite and how deeply the directors delved into the tribal customs of attack, raiding and revenge.

This whole week has been a nightmare for Mr Johnson's family and I am not so confident that the Saudi's have killed the people who did it. If they could do this so quickly, why didn't they find Johnson while he was still alive? Did anyone hear last week that our FBI was in Saudi Arabia helping to look for Johnson??

I was remembering that the author of "Searching For Hassan", Bruce Feiler, has a brother who lives in Saudi Arabia with his family, The spokesman for the Crown prince says that there are no Americans who live there leaving the country.

I am getting ready to go into Chap 4 but a very full weekend here with dinner out for the family tonight plus a celebration of Father's Day tomorrow means that reading has to take a back seat until Sunday night or maybe on Monday. See you then!

Are you familiar with Elinor Burkett and her new book, "So Many Enemies, So Little Time: An American Wooman in All the Wrong Places". I am watching her on BookTV at the Heritage Foundation.

I am interested in reading this book.

We Muslims are one family even though we live under different governments and in various regions." - Ayatullah Rubollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's revolution.

"The real force of Islam is the feeling that you belong to a brotherhood with the obligation to serve that brotherhood and thereby serve God." - Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Minister of Petroleum

"Islam judges, Islam protects, Islam urges resistance when there is injustice," - Anwar Gamall, Egyptian university student

The three preceding quotations were the preface of TIME's cover story, a Special Report on The World of Islam, published on April 16, 1979.

In the last full paragraph on page 3 of Islamic Threat the author says, "Case studies of Muslim countries and Islamic movements will demonstrate the diversity in geograpyhy, politics, ideological and organizational orientation, tactics, and foreign policy of the Islamic resurgence." (Underlining mine)

But, I submit, this diversity began to form, and has existed, in Islam since the beginning of its expansion under the Caliphs after the death of Muhammad (in Medina in 632), but subject to the history and geography of the respective country.

One fifth of the world's people are Muslims: in Africa, the Turkish half of the divided island of Cyprus, the countries on the Arabian Peninsula, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia. In and despite their diversity they are united in their faith and in a common cause. For that very reason may I say with due respect that I wonder about the applicability of the term "nationalism".

to be continued

Countries would make one want to bring nationalism to the respective countries.

What's so different from the claim above by Yamani, the Saudi minister of petroleum, about Islam's focus on serving their God and their brotherhood and a claim from another worldwide religion's same hope for their faith?? Consider the Hindus of India, the Shintois of Japan, the Buddhism of China, the Christians around the world. They each have a way to serve a god and to be decent human beings. Couldn't they make the same claims that the Muslims do?

Was the leaders who wanted to bring their religion into the real world 100 years ago. What is it that makes us think that modernization prevents us from honoring our gods with our specific faith.

Traude,

If I understand your last statement, you think that the blame of this rift in Islam is due to the split when Mohommad died?

ANN,

jut came home from the local book group meeting. We had lunch first and then a wonderful discussion. Only the June meeting is prefaced by a leisurely lunch, and it is very special.

Re your last question, the answer is no. There was no split in Islam when M. died. Since all his sons had died young, he left no male descendants. A male relative became his undisputed successor and began the active, forceful propagation of the faith.

Back later.

Expanding a bit on Traude's post, here's a link to information about the descendents of the Prophet Mohamed from an article in the Egyptian English language Al Ahram weekly newspaper:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/422/fe1.htm

PERSIAN, thank you for the link. It shows that the spelling of Muhammad's name varied: in French it is "Mahométan", in German "Mohammed", in Italian "Maometto".

To elaborate on my earlier post (only briefly because I am leaving directly for a doctor's appointment and hope to be enlightened as to the cause of my persistent backaches):

Islam has flourished in regions of extreme diversity with regard to climate, culture, and ethnicity. The major ethnic groups include the Arabs (North Africa and the middle East); Turks and Turkish peoples(Turkey, parts of the former USSR, and Central Asia); Iranians (who are NOT Arabs, as often erroneously thought - perhaps some of you remember our discussion of the memorable "The House of Sand and Fog); Afghans, the Indo-Muslims (Pakikstan, India, and Bangladesh); Southeast Asians (Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines), and a small percentage of Chinese. In Europe Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity.

Back later

My sincere apology for misreading your post and referring to "rift" instead of "diversity" and thereby misunderstanding your whole post. Its been a hectic week and I hope you will understand.

I do agree that diversity has existed since Islam began and that the practice of the faith may have different traditions due to nationalities.

Here is a link to an article in the NYT about the Iraqi Shiites.

For Iraq's Shiites, Faith Knows No Borders

ANN - it's also helpful to note that within the category of nationalities, there are still differences in the manner in which Islam is practiced. Nigerian tribal Muslims are much more traditional and conservative than their urban, well educated brethren. The same could be said for Iranian Muslim peasants from Rasht, as opposed to individuals in Tehran. And Muslims in the USA (whether American born or descendents of immigrants) will certainly be more attuned to mainstream practices than those who have not experienced life in the USA.

Reaping the Whirlwind By Fouad Ajami

I am beginning to understand more of what is going on today, not just from the book, but from reading these types of articles written by people who are aware of the Islamic problems.

ANN, there is no apology necessary, please!

I still intend to (briefly) outline the modest, even unlikely beginnings of Islam, for I strongly believe that without a look back we cannot possibly understand the present conditions. Thank goodness, there's no appointment on the agenda for tomorrow.

I have what may be an interesting footnote to Traude's comment that Islam is the second largest religion in Europe after Christianity.

Last year I took a tour of Scandinavia. While showing us through Stockholm, the tour guide told us that, while the majority of Swedes are Lutheran, the fastest growing religion in Sweden (blond, blue-eyed Sweden) is Islam.

Rich

Here's a link to numerous comments about the growth of Islam in the world and in specific regions (i.e., the USA). Some of the comments are from well known public figures, others from scholars. Even James Michener is included.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm

RICH - since Islam knows no color, ethnic or national boundaries, it's not surprising that it should flourish in Sweden.

Persian, Yes, you are correct. I find myself often falling into the trap of thinking of Islamics and Arabs interchangibly, probably because of the difficulties in the Middle East. It takes something like my Swedish experience to remind me of the point that you and Traude stress that Islam crosses all national, racial, geographic,etc bounderies.

I'm still puzzled by the appeal of Islam. The author hasn't answered that well enough for me yet. As a kid I was often told of the good work that Christain missionaries were doing in Africa. If they were doing such a good job, why is Africa predominantly Islamic?

Persian, the link that you posted in your post #75 showed the testimony of an Irish Catholic who converted to Islam because it made more sense to him. (One God, rather than having to believe in a Trinity- three dieties, as the Irish convert referred to it.) Do you think that's why one fifth of the world's population is Islamic and Islam is the fastest growing religion in Western countries like Sweden?

I'm sure it's not that simple, nothing is. But I'd like an answer that I can appreciate and feel comfortable with.

I hope the author gets to this point.

Rich

I think that the answer to the question you pose is probably different for each person. For example, I am from a multicultural, multi-religious family (French/Irish/Persian; Jewish, Christian Muslim). Thus for me, the interweaving of the historical aspects of culture within religion is something I grew up with, am comfortable with and generally understand and accept. But not everyone has the blessing of that kind of background.

Westerners, who have grown up in purely contemporary Christian communities and families (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant), and who, perhaps, have not had the benefit of comparative religious study or a personal interst in other religions (or people of dissimilar backgrounds) find it extremely difficult to get past the belief that if one does not accept Jesus as the Christ, publicly profess one's belief in the Trinity, and continue to follow that route, they are not considered to be true Christians. And as we know psychologically, there is a great fear among humans not to be accepted by society.

From the Islamic standpoint, it is considered that the religion is the "cap stone" of God's efforts to bring a clear understanding to ALL people. He tried first with the Jews, who often turned their backs on Him. Then Christianity sprung forth from among Jews, yet many new Christians (Jews AND their Gentile brethren) turned their own backs on God. Finally, Muslims believe, God basically said "one last time," and brought forth His Word to the Prophet Mohamed and thus Islam was born.

From the standpoint of the Trinity - and I think I have posted this earlier - Muslims find it absolutely abhorant that any Father (including God) would allow his sosn to be crucified. And most especially that Christians believe God allowed Jesus to be crucified for the sins of OTHER people. Muslims believe that there is a direct relationship between each person and God. No one - not a priest, pastor, rabbi or imam - is needed for an individual lto have a personal relationship with God. Thus, then (from the Muslims' standpoint) would it be necessary for Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) to have died in such a horrible way for the sins of others. Muslims believe that if someone has sinned, they can fall to their knees and ask God's forgiveness, if they so choose.

So one of the GREAT appealing aspects of Islam is the overall acceptance of everyone who makes the commitment to God (not to Jesus, nor in front of a Pstor or Deacons or Elders or a congregation), and not falling to the floor in a mesianic swoon or speaking in tongues. A quiet word with God does the trick for Muslims.

There are also many, many similarities between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. Thus, it is not as awkward or foreign as it may seem for someone from another faith to convert to Islam. The conversion process is very simple - simply making a statement that one believes -and the acceptance within the Muslim community is instant. The high ideals of Islam (absolutely NOT represented by the heinous acts of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan which are featured on TV and in the print media) are also familiar to Christians and Muslims, offering another reason for acceptance.

From my own personal experiences in international travel, I have been able to identify myself to educated and illiterate Muslims, those who are wealthy and others in poverty, some well known and others just average citizens of their own communities. In all cases, I have been instantly offered whatever kind of assistance I might need - and in many cases, when I really don't need anything! Concern for my welfare, my living accommodations, whether I am hungry or thirsty, whether I feel safe and have dependable transportation, etc. have been topics posed to me instantly by total stangers. Except they are really NOT strangers: they are Muslims.

I am not seeing anymore information in this book than those of us who have tried to trace the three faiths from Abraham have already attempted to learn. I thought maybe the author would get more deeply into the intricacies of Islam.

And, quite frankly, I am having trouble reading his claims with what is going on in the Middle East today.

One of the things promised to us today was that we would be invaded and soon by the Al Queda group and they do claim to be Muslim. Its very hard to ignore these awful things that are happening.

I was so pleased to read about the history of Spain when the Moors took over the country. The art, the architecture, Cordova, the beautiful gardens. Plus, for the most part, they didn't insist on conversion to Islam by the Christians and Jews. They did have to pay a tax for not being Muslim but other than that its my understanding that they were left alone.

ANN - the Moorish influence in Spain was indeed a beautiful period for the arts and culture, learning at the highest levels and a vast expansion of collaborative thinking and analysis.

Certainly the Al Queda claim to be Muslims. And among themselves they truly believe they are following the tenets of Islam. Just as the fanatical Wahabbists of Saudi Arabia believe that their country could return to the time of the Prophet, totally negating as irrelevant (and in some cases non-existent) the value of contemporary society, learning, education across ALL disciplines, science, medical discoveries, the emancipation of women, etc. It is a "locked-in" mindset; extremely difficult to break away from and almost impossible to overcome, especially for the emotionally, psychologically vulnerable and those who have not had the blessings of a broader (world) education.

What I have been posting is meant to help the general reader understand that among the world community of Muslims - in all regions, NOT just the Middle East or Central Asia - the violence against civilians, non-combatants, women, children, seniors, the disabled, etc. IS NOT PART OF ISLAM (the religion). The behavior of the individuals who follow the Al Queda doctrine is NOT acceptable to the majority of Muslims in the world.

At the same time, as we have seen in the decisions from Washington regarding on-the-ground treatment of insurgents in Iraq, there is a considerable MISUNDERSTANDING (mostly cultural, rather than religious) of the people and the region. And religion, especially among the Shiites who follow Moqtada Sadr.

I appreciate that there may be difficulty in reading this book of Esposito's at the same time we are keeping up with the daily events in the Middle East brought to us by the Western media. One of the difficulties may be that Esposito is ranging across many issues within Islam, not just focusing on issues that we view or read about daily. His is an "academic" look at the issue - not always an easy read - and meant to be understood on a broad comparison basis.

If, as you mentioned above, you are more interested "in the intricacies of Islam," and feel that Esposito is not addressing that issue, then let's discuss whatever questions you may have here. Post some questions (as you did about the book in the header) and let's try to broaden this discussion a bit.

My sense is that we are a well informed group, wise in the ways of the world in various aspects, but perhaps put off a bit by the "dramatics" and violence of what Al Queda has threatened. Violence occurs world-wide; it is just NOT always reported in the Western media. Thus, western readers are NOT always aware of the breqadth of the happenings. Americans read quite a bit about the violence in Israel, but how many people really focus on the intricacies of the violence and why they occur? The history behind the violent acts? The decisions made in the Knesset or by Ariel Sharon and his party. "Those things happen in Israel," not in the USA. But what I think has happened in the USA is that we have been cautioned (sometimes in an absurd manner and without specific details, which Americans usually want)by Washington and the Dept of Homeland Security, as well as by threats from Al Queda and its followers. How we handle those warnings is up to the individual. Yet IMO, there is NEVER too much information; nor too many opportunities to learn. Which is what this dicussion provides: an opportunity to learn - if not from Esposito's work, then from each other.

Unfortunately, a series of unexpected interruptions has kept me off line for most of the day. Then my ISP has "terminated" me twice. I sit here licking my wounds, as it were.

ANN, I agree. I too have not been able to fully immerse myself in the author's description of the present-day situation quite yet, simply because I am still very intent on outlining the beginning first for a clearer understanding.

The history books are wanting in that respect. As I discovered when I began the research for my thesis, there was NO serious, objective historical study of Islam undertaken until the nineteenth century . The Catholic Church for its part regarded the Islamic faith and its gradual but unstoppable, tenacious spread as a dangerous phenomenon and the archenemy of Christianity. Through the centuries Mohammed was branded variously as an impostor, a villain, profligate, evil. But the faith lives; he is revered by Muslims.

One of the first, if not the first, objective, descriptive work published was "Mohammed, der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre" = Muhammad, the Prophet, his Life and his Doctrine, by Weil, Stuttgart 1843. Since then, thousands upon thousands of books have appeared.

But the emergence, the bursting forth, the migration out of the desert of masses of people after Mohammed's death accounts for the important cultural exchange in the sciences and in art, whose traces we still see today not only in Spain but in other mediterranean countries. (The architecture of St. Mark's Churh in Venice is but one example.)

A brief outline.

570 A.D. Mohammed born in Mecca. (I am not sure why the author writes Mecca is "roughly" in modern day Saudi Arabia. It IS in Saudi Arabia.) His father died before he was born, his mother when he was six. Raised by an uncle, became a trader, is believed to have been exposed to Jewish and Christian thought of a monotheistic religion (belief in one God). The Arabs of his day were still idolatrous.

More to come.

I finally got to "Jihad:The Forgotten Obligation" on pg 143 and found that al-Jihad thought that waging holy war against Egypt's un-Islamic state plus its leader, Anwar Sadat was in God's cause.

1. Isn't this the similar ideology that is put forth today by the different Islamic organizations around the whole world??

The al-Jihad claimed that "holy war" was the sixth pillar of Islam.

Isn't this what is happening today?

As the Crusaders were sure that they were right, the people who battle today seem to have the same mindset.

How can we look any differently at these people than we would at the Crusaders??

Maybe thats my problem--having difficulty separating "the reality of today" from "history". I will try to make a better effort.

Must leave for now as I have family duties calling. And, he's only 4yrs old!!

Your response to the question of the appeal of Islam was wonderfully written. (Post #147) The piece should not just fade into the archives of SN, it should be published.

You bring a perspective to this issue that is truly unique. That, along with your writing skills, really brings clarity to a discussion that can get complicated.

It should be submitted, at the least, as a letter to the editor.

Rich

Just came in here briefly to read the posts. I m very far from page 143.

Egypt's "un-Islamic state" ???

I am utterly stunned by this term. Please tell us, PERSIAN, is that really the correct expression?

What I have gathered from "PASSION FOR ISLAM", the book I am reading in tandem, written specifically about Egypt, where the author lived for five years, is that the Egyptians may not have been at times as orthodox in their religious practices as other Islamic countries, but - with due respect to Mr. Esposito - I have misgivings about the labeling of Egypt as "an un-Islamic state".

I will check "Passion for Islam" but won't be able to come back on line until the afternoon.

ANN - here is a link to an interesting article, written in 1995, by a faculty member of the University of Chicago. It may help you to "separate" the historical from the contemporary actions in Islam.

TRAUDE - The term "un-Islamic" is often used by those who consider themselves "true followers of Islam" against those whom they believe are not follows in the same way as themselves. For example, the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and their ilk in other countries, consider that the al-Saud rulers have "left the true Path," thus condeming them to "un-Islamic" behavior. During the rule of the late Shah of Iran, the Persian orthodox Shiites, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, believed and publicly spoke out constantly about the Shah's "un-Islamic" behavior. Whereas Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to balance the political aspects of his rule in Egypt with the good of the people - dealing with the Russians when the West would not cooperate (and vice versa) and was highly thought of by the Egyptian populace, Answar Sadaat was not seen in the same light. His early participation in the Muslim Brotherhood and then, later, his punishment of many of the senior operatives in the Brotherhood, was viewed as "un-Islamic" in the sense of siding with the West (particualrly the USA and Israel) against Islamic countries. When Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia accused Libya's Gadafi of "un-Islamic" behavior (when it became known publicly that Gadafi had approved an assasination attempt on his life), Gadafi just brushed off Abdullah's comments as being "un-Islamic."

Within the context of your question, under Nasser's rule, there was not the public emphasis on Islam as a religion (which infuriated the senior religious leadership). Egypt has not been considered an "orthodox Islamic country," as is Saudi Arabia, and includes a fairly permissive arts, film, theatre, and literary tradition.

"Pre-Islamic" and "un-Islamic" are not, obviously, the same thing. One of the vilest comments in the Muslim world is to refer to someone (especially a govt. leader) as being "un-Islamic." That kind of a comment is much more reprehensible than using vulgar words as is common in the West - although there are some pretty base expressions in Arabic, too.

IMO, I would not refer to Egypt as being "un-Islamic," but rather a country with a majority of Muslims, whose government is secular.

RICH - Thanks for your compliment. I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion.

TRAUDE - perhaps it is important to note that prior to the period you mention as being the first to produce a comprehensive view of Islam, there was a vast history in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Greek. Here is a link to work in the 12th century. The Library of Congress, the Bibliotheque Nationale, and the libraries at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford are also excellent sources of earlier works. Once the new Bibliotheque Alexandrina in Egypt is fully operational, it, too, will have wonderful resources to the early periods of Islam.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/adelardbath1.html

Finally on line again.

MAHLIA, I fully understand what you said and explained; what disturbs me is the author's use of the term "un-Islamic State", as if it were HIS viewpoint, HIS judgment rather than the opinion of the more militant countries in the heartland of Islam. I would have been less confused if the term had been put in quotation marks, as it should have been IMHO.

Egypt was indeed outwardly more modern and secular than the countries in the heartland of Islam. So was Lebanon, until hell broke loose. And so was Iran under the Shah, until the Ayatollah's return from exile, who decreed that the age-old rigid proscriptions be put back in place, and that they be enforced.

I am not sure what we are to determine from this book and don't have enough knowledge to even attempt answering the questions.

On what basis can we formulate opinions when we have relied for so long on what we were and are being told, or information gleaned from reading? Except, of course, when we have personal experience, like MAHLIA.

How do we know any given book is objective?

Can there be objectivity in today's world?

Doesn't every country have its own nationalism?

Who determines when that is harmful, and to whom?

For seasoned Seniors like us, I think we need to use double scoops of common sense in our reading and analyzing, determining by that old "gut feeling" whether something sounds logical (as we understand the culture from which it comes) or not. By that I mean to read and learn from the texts, but also to step back and consider what is absolutely absurd (in many if not most cultures) and what makes sense. And if as readers we have not had an opportunity to live/work/travel in cultures other than our own, then use that same tactical sense of logic about what is told to us.

For example, when I explain or comment on something that pertains to Islam, it may not make sense to everyone. If it's historical information and I can supply a source, that helps. If it's from my own personal experience, then I'm speaking only for/about myself. And in the latter case, it's up to the listener to either accept or reject what I've explained.

RE Esposito's comment about using the term "un-Islamic" - how about sending a short email to him and asking specifically what he meant. He is currently on sabbatical, but does check his email and might be interested enough in our discussion of his work to answer. His email address is jle2@georgetown.edu

I'm not sure that every country has its own nationalism. Perhaps nationalism is recognized among the well educated, well-to-do citizens of a country, but what of the rural villagers, those who are desperately impoverished, those who are members of minority tribes in Africa or Central Asia and really have no input with the country's government? Would you think that villages in the high mountains of the Hindu Kush have a strong sense of nationalism as you understand the word? How about families who live in the remote regions of Tibet or Mongolia and have little/if anything to do with the leadership of their country (or even with their provincial or nearest town or city government)? IMO, in these cases, there is a stronger sense of tribalism (and clan or village hierarchy)than of nationalism.

When I used the author's reference to an "un-Islamic" Egypt, I thought that I understood exactly what the al-Jihad felt. To them, the secular government including Anwar Saddat, was not following the Quran while making laws for their country. They wanted Islam to be the foundation of their laws. Then their solution was to rid the country of Saddat and others in the secular goverment whom they considered too Westernized.

Qubt, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, came to the US in 1949 and was so horrified at our liberalism, he returned to become the most conservative Islamic in Egypt. If he had waited until the 60's, he wouldn't have ever made it back to Egypt. He would have died of fright! And what would he think of the US today??

I do understand the very conservative leanings of Islam and their wanting their governments run by Islamics for Islamics. If only it were that simple.

Even Turkey has become more at ease with the Islamic politicians running for offices all over the country. Do they worry that the Turkish secular government will be changed with laws more Islamic than democratic?

I think there can't help but be concern among individuals about whether there will be an imitation of the former Khomeini-style government of Iran in their own countries. I remember years ago how terrified the Gulf States were that Khomeini's influence would intrude into their countries. Seems strange to remember now, but even Sadaam Hussein was worried for a while. However, in Saudi Arabia, where until recently, the citizens have really known no other way of life, the awareness of contemporary issues - and the world as it is, not just how they have been told it is - was slow to take hold, even with thousands of Saudis studying in the West. Now that the Ibn Saud have been threatened - blatantly and in public - I hope they come down really hard on those of their citizens who would take advantage of terrorist opportunities.

to join the European Union. So far the E.U. has not admitted them, and if they become more Islamic I doubt they will ever be admitted. But hard-core Islamicists have made great inroads even in Turkey which was one of the more advanced Middle East societies. I think it would be sad for Turkey to go backwards the way Iran did, especially as far as the women in that country. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

An interesting link to a Washingtgon Post article about a new book, written by a senior CIA officer who uses the name Anonymous. His take on the Islamic threat is somewhat different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6669-2004Jun25.html

Although I think that this CIA agent might be right, it doesn't mean that with time that the Muslim countries can't become more modern along with their religious preference. Above I asked the question as to why they can't have an Islamically based country and still function in this world. I see from the book that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Jamaat in Pakistan seemed to be trying to accomplish just that. As my husband says, it isn't that we should want the Muslim countries to follow us in politics and religion, but, that they not be less violent towards the West. There is no reason that they couldn't run these countries according to Islam and the Quran as long as they don't expect the rest of the world to follow behind.

Here's a question that just popped into my mind:

If these countries succeed with their Islamic sociopolitically run governments, what would they do when they needed loans?? Didn't we discuss the fact that one of the tenets of their faith is--NO BORROWING? Oh, well, that's not important at this moment but it is something that they will need to deal with.

IMHO, it seems that their have been many attempts to modernize the ME inside the Quran that always get off the track due to extremists. Is this the human reaction or condition?

ANN - there's nothing wrong with loans, in fact Islamic banks offer loans all the time. However, adding interest on the repayment is against Islam.

Saudi Arabia is an example of an Islamic country governing itself according to Islam. Thousands of Americans have lived in the country for many years, yet most of them live within American compounds, where they are not under the jurisdiction of the orthodox practices. So the different communities CAN live together.

" Thousands of Americans have lived in the country for many years, yet most of them live within American compounds, where they are not under the jurisdiction of the orthodox practices. So the different communities CAN live together."

I hate to say it but that sentence makes me cringe. I dont call that living together. It says the only way we can get along is to live separately in compounds.

Growing up in an AMerican city I lived in a neighborhood with Catholic, Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, Blacks, homeowners, renters, bums , retarded,homosexual people and when any of that group were ill or died the whole neighborhood came together ..NOW that was living together.

Who decides who must live in a compound and who is free to live where they wish? anna

I don't call that living together. Not only that, but I've known several people who lived and worked in those compounds in Saudi Arabia. One was a hospital administrator, trying to get a hospital started many years ago. He tells some interesting stories about living there, such as whenever they went off the compound (which they had to do in order to conduct business) he could NEVER be in a taxi cab with a female even though she may have been on a par with him as far as position. The morals police would stop them and demand a marriage license or arrest them. So a black market in phony marriage licenses went on just to get business done. It was irritating and restrictive and senseless.

He also said that in those days there were only two ways out of Saudi Arabia by plane, one to London and one to Bankok. By the time people left their compound and hit neutral ground in either London or Bankok, their frustrations and anger at the haughty way they had been treated by the Arabs was so intense, that he remembers many fights in both airports, where someone who had worked in Saudi Arabia hit the first Arab he saw to alleviate his frustration and anger. He witnessed that too many times to count.

No, I think there is no way that Islam can enter the modern world and combine religion with government and doing business in the modern world. I hope Mahlia is right and that I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

. . . I agree with a lot of what he says. I disagree strongly, however, with his view that getting rid of Saddam was an answer to terroritst prayer. First of all, Saddam was a danger in the ME after he invaded two countries there, and he was a loose cannon that even the ME governments wanted to get rid of. For them now to complain that we got rid of him is a bit much!!!

Second, for a long time there has been agitation on the part of extremist Muslims to get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, and I think this administration did want to do that. Saddam gave them the perfect excuse to get a foothold outside of Saudi Arabia. Saddam was obviously NOT a good poker player and had no clue about tactics---and that's what our government is doing. It's a tactical move, and all the rest, including WMDs and oil and "freeing" Iraqis, and whatever people talk about are only secondary issues.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have terrorism fought in its own back yard than in mine, and it's my opinion that's what this administration is trying to do---they are trying to keep us safe and fighting where the terrorism originates in the ME with a convenient foothold that was handed to them by Saddam's arrogance.

If this question is inappropriate, say so?

What is the difference in beliefs between the Sunni and Shii versions of Islam?

Just finishing chapter one. Have enjoyed all the posts. I am learning.

ANNA - sounds like you and I grew up in the same type of neighborhood!

RE your question "Who decides who must live in a compound and who is free to live where they wish? In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi govt. made that decision many years ago when more and more people from other countries were contracted to work in country. By having non-Saudis relegated to compounds in their non-working hours, they were more or less prevented from interacting regularly with Saudis.

The same type of living conditions (especially for Americans) were established in some areas of Iran, although many Westerners also lived in residential neighborhoods along with average Persian families. However, Americans in Iran (especially those who worked on the oil rigs and came to the large cities on their non-working days), were notorious for causing trouble with local shopkeepers, accosting women on the streets and embrassing them, and riding their motorcycles into the courtyards of mosques. I personally witnessed the latter on two occasions. When I shouted at the fellow on the bike, he just replied "Aw, Hon, we were just having a little fun."

MOUNTAIN ROSE - I, too, would rather not have terrorist acts committed in the USA, but in addition to the Islamic jihadists who have threatened to do so, there are also other home-grown groups to worry about: White Supremists; individuals who attack medical clinics which perform abortions; Latino drug lords in the larger cities - especially MARA-13, which has become especially active in the metropolitan Washington DC area; Asian gangs which deal in child prostitution throughout the USA (especially on both Coasts); Russian gangs in New York; and just the ordinary disenfranchised youth in almost any large city which gravitates to the Street and who must (to show their manhood) participate in some type of violence.

As for terrorism "originating in the ME" (to borrow your phrase above), we must not forget that which has been endemic throughout Africa (especially in the Western region); Asia (particularly in Indonesia and the Phillipines), and continued atrocities in Bosnia and Chechnya. Although the Middle East has been the featured region in the press, due to the USA participation in conflict in the region, there are other world regions which are equally as devastating to their citizens.

RE "Islam entering the modern world" - India comes readily to mind with its numerous technocrats who deal very well in contemporary global business society; millions of well educated, English speaking individuals with a modern understanding of the world and how best to advance in many disciplines. And within the USA, there are thousands of Muslims (many American-born) who have contributed to our society and continue to do so on an interdisciplinary basis.

And while the Islamic jihadists abroad continue their efforts to force their beliefs on others through violence, here is a link to an article in today Washington Post about a Christian pastor who was raised in a conservative Jewish family, converted to Christianity, and now believes that it is his "God-given calling" to convert Jews to Christianity through humanitarian service and outreach to the community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7933-2004Jun26.html

I don't have the book to read, but I'm following the discussion just to learn from y'all and enjoy the comments. I've just read the article in the Washington Post, and frankly, I find it scary as all get out. Am I alone in this?

I agree with your feeling about the Washington Post Article. Brrrr!

DONNA

The first one of: "As for terrorism "originating in the ME" (to borrow your phrase above), we must not forget that which has been endemic throughout Africa (especially in the Western region); Asia (particularly in Indonesia and the Phillipines), and continued atrocities in Bosnia and Chechnya. Although the Middle East has been the featured region in the press, due to the USA participation in conflict in the region, there are other world regions which are equally as devastating to their citizens." --- None of those terrorists you mentioned above flew planes into buildings and killed 3,000+ people. None of them have attacked the U.S. directly in the way ME terrorists did on our own ground. So I feel the military foothold in the ME is absolutely MANDATORY to fight it on their own grounds as much as possible and root them out. I feel the attack on 9/11 was a direct act of aggression and war, and needs to be fought as such in ALL the countries that harbor terrorists. To me it's like living in a slum neighborhood. All sorts of things may be going on out there, with killing and drug dealing and turf wars, but as long as they don't enter my house there isn't much I can do about it. The minute they enter my house, I will do something about it---you betcha. And that's what I think happened on 9/11. I think we can't be wimpy about it or worry about the civilians who will be killed, and I'm saying that as having been a German child in WWII, where over half of my family was killed. But the housecleaning needed to be done in Germany, and it needs to be done in the ME now.

"RE "Islam entering the modern world" - India comes readily to mind with its numerous technocrats who deal very well in contemporary global business society; millions of well educated, English speaking individuals with a modern understanding of the world and how best to advance in many disciplines. And within the USA, there are thousands of Muslims (many American-born) who have contributed to our society and continue to do so on an interdisciplinary basis." --- India is mostly Hindu, and Hindus have no problem with the modern world. India also allows it's women more breathing room. As for the Muslims in America, I sure hope they have some influence on extremist Islam, but so far I haven't seen enough of it that I feel it makes any difference whatsoever in those extremist views, sorry to say. In fact, sometimes it seems just the opposite to me, that those extremist views are also pushed right here in this country by lawsuits that demand "rights" that are often unreasonable in our society with our laws. And I've heard very few Muslim clerics come right out and say that what is going on is WRONG except in sort of a "yes it's wrong, but . . . ." way.

As for all of our social problems that you mentioned, including drug dealing, gangs of all sorts, child prostitution, etc., those are all social problems that we do have. But so far I haven't seen Latino drug lords bomb our buildings and kill 3,000 innocent people. Usually the drug lords kill each other, not the rest of us. The drug lords never hijacked planes either, and with as long as drug lords have been around, we haven't needed all sorts of airport security and Homeland Security to protect us the way we do now. There is a huge difference, even though granted, the problems are also horrendous, but they are social problems, not terrorist problems.

I have read that the Russian mafia is so ruthless that they make every other mafia and drug lord look like child's play, and that may be true, and it's something we have to deal with; but so far they haven't made an aggressive act of war in the way bin Laden did, nor is the Russian government openly hiding them and supporting them. Instead, Russia's law enforcement feels overwhelmed by the mafia, but not because they are sympathetic to them the mway ME countries are to the terrorists.

MOUNTAIN ROSE - you're absolutely right in your couner-points. My purpose in pointing out the social problems in the US was an indication that while we are continuing to be as forceful as possible abroad - especially in the Middle East - America is also struggling with threats and atrocities right here within our country.

And as we continue to do so, IMO, the best way to counter whatever threats Islamic jihadists may pose within our borders is to learn as much about Islam and its adherents as possible, NOT just the extreme elements, but also among the average Muslims who are parts of our communities, schools, work places and community endeavors.

As far as women within Islam in the USA, NOT all Muslimas are sequestered or prevented from working or having a role in the community. Many women are active professionally and spend considerable time and funds to support community endeavors. They just don't make the front pages of the newspapers or are featured on nightly news programs on a regular basis. Thus, their efforts are not well known. If you are active on an intercultural or multireligious basis, that's the way to learn about what Muslimas are doing. Many of the Christian churches and Jewish organizations and synagogues in our area have hosted opportunities for the public to learn about Muslims. The events have been well attended, questions posed and answered, and a better understanding created by and among the participants.

MARY Z and DONNA - there are numerous mega-churches in our area, but the one featured in the Post article is the first one I've heard about where the Pastor has identified a specific group as his "God given" mission to convert.

MOUNTAIN ROSE, the essential difference between Turkey and Iran is that Turkey has a secular government, Iran does not.

"rooting out" the terrorists wherever they are sounds like a very tall order to me.

MAHLIA, I totally agree that we ought to learn as much as possible about Islam and have said so from the beginning.

Yes, the article about the book by Anonymous is frightening. Pray that the real name not be leaked !!

Our answer to 9/11 was Afghanistan. I beg to differ on Iraq but will not engage in polemics of any sort.

Mahalia we have an active Arab-American community here ,..many doctors, dentists and professional people ..although I am begining to believe all the DUNKIN DONUTS are now owned by Arabs...

What troubles me ..and I defended the Arab-Americans when 9/11 happened pointing out that Arabs were originally blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing..it was printed in the newspaper..and have visited the nearest local mosque as well as other religeous churches and Temples.

With the revelation of the treatment in the prison in Bagdad was revealed there was much hue and cry about it and rightly so ...but with the beheadings which are even worse in my opinion I dont see the Arab community saying it is wrong ..In fact what I am reading and have no way of knowing whether it is true ..that Islam has some passage that encourages revenge..Please enlighten me ...

am all for accepting other peoples faiths but it is a two way street..and I dont want to go down it by myself...in one of the help columns ala Ann Landers someone wrote that this young couple wanted to marry but the girl was Arab and her father threatened to kill her if she married this non Arab..now this was a Arab-American family..I cant vouch for the accuracy and I even wondered if it wasnt an attempt to paint the Arabs in a bad light but have you ever heard of this ..it was in my local newspaper some weeks back..I never want to feel hostile toward those who are different from me for any reason...but I would like to feel they do not feel hostile toward me either..anna

You might want to read this about the differences of Sunni and Shia Muslim and how that split occurred.

Origins of the Sunni-Shia Split

Donnelinor

Glad to see that you are reading the posts and commenting. Do join us more often!

Well, surprise-surprise! Iraq has been handed over to the Iraqi authorities but HENRY KISSINGER says it remains to be seen if having their own laws and government will work. Lets hope and pray that this is a good move!!

Annfair

I can't answer your question about the Arab-American family's threat to kill their daughter if she married a non-Arab but I hope that Persian can.

MountainRose

I do believe that all we can do is hope for the success of a Islamic governed country. Turkey seems to doing well and so does Iran( in spite of their nuclear leanings). We have to hope that these governments will work and as I said before, as long as these sovereign nations are peaceful and don't want the rest of the world to come under their rule, I don't see why it can't work. According to the book, this has been tried in some of the Muslim countries with many different results and reactions to the folks who were trying to modernize their religion and their goverment.

Persian

How does Egypt function in the modern world?? Are they a Muslim run country??

About the Islamic banks, how do they stay in business, if they do not charge interest on their loans?? Is it a paper thing?? Such as a person borrowing $10,000 but being charged $12,000 for the payback??

Actually my question was to the Muslim countries borrowing money from a country which charges interest. Seems like they would have to always borrow from other Muslim countries. What say you?

That seeming non sequitur was spoken by one of the "talking head" experts on a cable TV news program within the last few days. As I read the book and postings I am finding myself agreeing with him.

There are some very intelligent postings being made in this discussion, but I still feel like we're talking around the issue and not getting to the core. Don't get me wrong, I don't know what or where the core is, myself.

I'll read one of the excellent postings by Persian, and say to myself "Yeah, she's right on!" Then up comes a thoughtful posting by Mountain Rose (ex. #171) taking a position that differs, and it's "Yay, mountain Rose." in my mind.

On another subject,I posted, earlier, that a secular democracy in Iraq is a noble experiment in a predominantly Muslim country which I hope succeeds. Someone corrected me, and rightly so, by pointing out that Turkey is a secular democracy with a predominantly Muslim population. They maintain the separation of church and state with police and military techniques and tactics that border on repression. I'm not sure the indigenous police and military in Iraq are ready to deal with any insurgencies with such strength and resolve. I guess that's why we're going to be there for a while.

Something that I have mentioned before, but keeps coming back in my mind is the tepid response of the American Muslim community to the outrages of 9/11, the kidnappings, the beheadings. Where is the marching in the streets, the unequivocal outpouring of disavowal?

Is there a red flag being waved in our faces, and we choose to ignore it in favor of political correctness?

Rich

Doesn't it make you feel as though you are trying untangle the core of a golf ball (old fashioned golf ball, that is) where every time you manage to straighten a small length, it breaks off?

I am with you.it is the question I keep asking..the searching of newspapers , the hope that some news story will answer WHERE is the Muslim anger at how their religeon is being tainted by these barbaric acts?

There have been minor quotes from minor people saying Islam is not like that ! Gads we live in a country where the slightest thing will set off a demonstration..People march and support all kinds of causes and others march and support the opposite. Where are the marchers? the responsible members of the Arab community ? If ISLAM isnt like that why dont they say so????? NOW I can tell you the lack of same scares me ...because by not saying so I wonder is ISLAM like what we are seeing? just thinking ...anna

RICH, but what exactly IS the issue we should talk about?

After 9/11 many people from the Middle East living here were terribly afraid. There were, after all, several attacks by angry Americans in this state on people who looked like Arabs. I know that my next-door neighbor was horribly frightened, and so was his family. He is Lebanese (and looks the part), his wife is American. The American flag was hoisted immediately and other patriotic signs on the lawn were put up.

Of course the barbaric, abhorrent beheadings are roundly condemned all over the world. These impassioned, crazed extremists are doing immense, perhaps irreparable damage to their own cause! Would that we had taken the signs seriously when the WTC was first attacked! Not even after the attack on the Cole did we wake up!! We have ignored intelligence about bin Laden's intentions.

We have very badly misjudged the situation in Iraq, before we went in and thereafter. Most of all there was absolutely no plan for the immediate future. The hostilities never really ended, the insurgence began and violence continues.

The reconstruction was placed in the hands of an American firm on the basis of no-bid contracts. We were dismissive of the UN, now we are imploring them to help. We relied on the advice of Chalabi, an expatriate Iraqui, who had lived in London for decades, and blindly believed his flawed intelligence. We gave him and his office, whatever it was called, several hundred thousand dollars a month, and have since dropped him. We have bungled the situation, dismissed the Iraqui police and are now calling them to return, and must rely on them - to prevent anarchy.

European papers reported that tens of thousands protested in Istanbul against our president's visit. I'm afraid we'll need a lot of hope.

ANN, thanks for the invite to participate more....I am so happy just be able to read all of you brilliant and thinking people. My oars have touched little water in comparison, BUT,

MOUNTAIN ROSE, your description of social problems as opposed to terrorist problems is interesting. Living in So. California where gangs shoot through the walls and windows of houses, or shoot into groups of any age on the streets, striking anyone...often children, seems to me to be one of the worst kinds of terrorism. I also believe that it is meant as just that. Whether 3,000 people, or one person, is injured or dies from these attacks, the impact is the same. In my humble opinion, social problems to we personally unaffected people becomes a "tsk, tsk", where the impact of 3,000 gets attention and is labeled terrorism. I'm not denying your description, and will ponder more. DONNA

To your question, I think the central issue is contained in the title of Esposito's book "Islamic Threat, Myth or Reality?"

As you said, these impassioned crazed extremists are doing immense perhaps irreparable damage to their own cause.

If these extremists have "hijacked" their religion, where are the tens of thousands of good Muslims in the middle East that we should see flocking into the streets to protest this hijacking? Nothing but silence.

They have no problem protesting loudly when an American president goes near the area for a NATO meeting.

You have to wonder, is this really a hijacking or do these extremists possibly act and speak for the majority of worldwide Islamic sentiment? The "arab street" as they call it are doing NOTHING to show us otherwise.

If we come to this conclusion, it's a lot scarier world out there than I thought.

Rich

. . . which hurts innocent people is also an form of terrorism, but it is not the same as declaring war. When you think that on 9/11 more people died than in Pearl Harbor, and they were civilians to boot, that is, to me, an act of war that cannot be ignored.

I agree with Rich 100%. Where are the moderate Muslims who are protesting their religion being hijacked? I have yet to really see some effort being made by them, and without qualifications. But there sure is enough protest against American presence and against the American president, so they aren't as meek as they claim in the least. As for those who are here in the U.S. being fearful, well, maybe they would need to be less fearful if they showed us which side they were really on.

Before and during WWII there were many Germans who were fearful also, and rightly so for many of them. I know of some who were sympathetic or worked on behalf of the Nazis right here in this country. Others were asked to make a choice by the immigration department who kept track of ALL immigrants at the time. Basically they had to decide which side they were one. One couple my parents knew decided they just could not desert the country of their birth and they went back to Germany. After the war they wanted to return to the U.S. and the U.S. said "NO WAY!"---and rightly so! Why would a country want immigrants here who are not totally loyal to their adopted country? We have enough disloyal citizens already without importing more.

I personally think our president made a tremendous statement when he went to a mosque right after 9/11. He gave the country the message that a repeat of what happened before and during WWII will not be allowed. It took a lot of courage to do that. At the same time I think the immigration department does need to keep track of ALL immigrants until they become citizens, and I don't care where those immigrants come from. We were kept track of, had to register every year and register each new address whenever we moved, under the threat of deportation if we failed to register. I never felt it was an infringement, but instead felt it was their right to do that until I became a bonafide citizen. I don't understand why we are not still doing that. In fact, I feel it's MANDATORY under the circumstances.

Tomorrow we will be at the end of our time with this book and we haven't really finished it. With what is going on in the world today and our ongoing interest in the problems of the Middle East and terrorists and the faith of Islam, I would like to suggest that those who want to continue discussing the Middle East with opinions from both sides of the room might want to join the discussion on SN. Although the last time that I looked in there, it had turned into a bash Bush or bash Kerry discussion. Out of 30 posts, I didn't find one mention of the ME. Well, maybe one of you could institute a change there.

IMHO, those of you who are more interested in the religious discussion would certainly enjoy joining the discussion Islam

Our good friend, Persian, frequents the Islam folder.

I want to thank all of you for your deep and interesting comments and questions.

And I hope you will join us also in the Religious Books folder again and that we will come up with another book later in the year. I notice that the Story of Civilization is discussing, in depth, "Christianity" this week. Quite a good conversation. This is another place which you all might enjoy reading and commenting.

I want to leave you with a nice quote by a Retired General of American Special Operations Command in a book he co-authored with Tom Clancy about the special ops soldiers and their heavy responsibility to protect our country.

"Islam is one of the world's great faiths, one that brings great riches to all the world's human commmunity. Most of these new terrorists proclaim their total and undying faith in Islam, yet they justify their actions by their own interpretation of their religion. Their Islam is not the true Islam. In effect, they have hijacked their own religion." Carl Steiner, SF(Ret).

Many years ago, we briefly studied the different faiths in our study club, Islam being one, and I certainly saw no threat from Islam to our way of life. They have contributed so much in the arts and sciences to the world, and I'm sure most Muslims would like to live their lives out in peace to work and raise their families, just like the rest of us.

And, to that I say, AMEN!!

ANN, I am sorry I could not participate more consistently in this discussion that is about to end. Thank you for moderating it so patiently and calmy at a time when emotions are running high. Most of all, thank you for taking on the challenge of this book. All the participants deserve to be warmly lauded.

RICH, I hope you knew that I did not, and would not, deliberately ignore your last message and your question. My answer is late due to time constraints.

I see, with "issue" you meant the question posed in the title and esp. the subtitle of our book: The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? , 1999, now in its third edition. Clearly an inspired, interest-arousing title.

Even in 1999 the answer was obvious, and is more so now, from all we have seen since: Reality. The reason? Militancy, the reign of terror and intimidation. What can we do as individuals? Be thoroughly informed, I say.

What we now need, after the pushed-ahead hand-over of power in Iraq, are reasonable, calm, honest, candid, straightforward, unbiased (i.e. non-partisan) analyses by people familiar with ME affairs, and hosts who feature them, like Charlie Rose for one. His PBS program last night featured Robin Wright, a specialist on the ME. And there are other programs, such as Ted Koppel's Night Line.

The early-by-two-days ending of the occupation of Iraq left reporters scrambling (said Peter Jennings). One point was brought up (can't remember where) and registered with me: An American in authority was asked WHO these insurgents are and whether the departing Paul Bremer knew who they are.

The answer to the first part of the question was, who knows, and, to the second part, most likely not . The question as to WHAT fuels their increasing violence was answered at least partially in Ted Koppel's program "Night Line" yesterday. The root cause is seething, worsening anti-Americanism, which is spreading like wild fire - and not only in the ME, for different reasons.

One of them is the unsolved (perhaps unsolvable) Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has festered and worsened over the decades, with the U.S. favoring one side over the other. Then came the invasion of Iraq, undertaken with high tech weaponry (promoted months before and a staple on nightly TV), surgical strikes, collateral damage (= uncounted civilian casualities), and all the rest. Against the advice of top military officers we sent far, far fewer people over than proved to be necessary to recreate order and reestablish security.

The people were jubilant, of course, when the dictator fell. But what we failed to realize is that democracy has to grow organically and must be carefully nurtured. It's not something one wakes up to one fine day. To IMPOSE it will not work. We cannot shape the world in our own image, no matter how hard we try.

The debate could go on ad infinitum= indefinitely and probably is right now. Wherever that is, I won't be there.

Again many thanks, ANN, and everybody.