Here we go. :lol
I apologize for taking your post and hacking it up in my quotes. A crying baby prevents me from responding in it's entirety.
Not at all. But permit me to do the same.
In looking again at my Quran, the commentator Maulana Muhammad Ali does attempt to whitewash Sura 9:5 and say that it is merely for the "idolaters" of Arabia, and have nothing to do with the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's day. The surrounding verses do speak of supposed treaties with different tribes and such, but the emphasis is still clear: Submit to Islam or face the sword.
You interpret one explanation of the verse as "whitewash" and submit your own interpretation of the emphasis as "clear." I think my point still stands, words are subjective, and can both reinforce and tear down the same belief when used with skill. The beauty and fault of the written word, I suppose you could say. What is clear is that one Maulana Muhammad Ali does not interpret the verse to imply prejudice towards any other religious bodies, and you disagree with his assessment. Therefore, the only thing that's clear, is that the scripture can be interpreted in multiple ways. It is also clear which way Osama interprets it to meet his ends, but that interpretation is by no means the only one, nor does it reflect the general consensus of the muslim body of faith.
Also, check out Leviticus sometime. Pay close attention to how he describes certain "immoral" people should be dealt with. Let me tell you, he does not prescribe forgiveness. Rather, he likes to invoke a well thrown stone...
An interesting definition of jihad, you have. because when I hear it spoken from an Arabic Muslim, it refers to their fight against the Western Society.
Then I suggest you ask more Arabic Muslims, in addition to African muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Indian Muslims, European Muslims, South American Muslims, and, of course, American Muslims. A trip down to your local Mosque may be of great service in understanding the way the majority of muslims view Jihad. When was the last time the Muslims down your street (or perhaps several blocks over) spoke of "wiping [the] Israeli presence from the face of the earth"? One Arabic Muslim does not speak for all Arabic Muslims, and clearly not for all Muslims. Don't judge the faith on the faults of the followers, or Christianity becomes just as, if not more so, condemnable.
A link is still a link, no matter how much we want to dismiss the similarities.
Again, see "Christianity," and the "mistakes" thereof. The Christian faith can be "linked" to some of the world's worst atrocities. Hitler claimed to be a Christian, he was "linked" to it you might say. Does that link have any merit at all? Of course not. The situation is not an exact parallel, here the link is much more obvious and its use much more evident, but many people many times over have used sound ideologies, beliefs, or values to justify their own immoral actions. That doesn't mean there's any merit to their claims. That is the situation here as well.
Education cannot bar someone from being a radical. History shows many examples of people being very educated, and still causing some of the most disastrous events in history.
I was not attempting to exonerate Bin Laden of his crimes by calling him educated. I was simply trying to nullify claims that he is otherwise, and that his hatred for the west is simple, crazy, or born of ignorance. Hatred is wrong, period. There is no justification for it, but saying his hatred can be attributed to an improper education or imbalanced brain chemistry is pretty far from the truth.
Once again, if a man calls himself a freedom fighter and creates terror and death, we must define him based on his actions and not his title.
Once again, I think this proves my initial point. Based on the actions of the American people, and indeed the western world at large, we are all murderers, vandals, sowers of evil and catastrophe. Just look at the terrible actions we've committed in the name of "Freedom." Look at the actions that we are responsible for on the evening news tonight that were done, and justified, because the soldiers involved were "fighting for freedom." We can call it whatever we want, democracy, security, and so on, but our actions speak louder than words. We are killing innocent people with bombs, mortars, grenades, guns, and every other tool of death imaginable. We have invaded another country halfway around the world, with armed forces, declared ourselves sovereign over the area for the time being (until we get a nice puppet dictator set up that is) and continually terrorize the people of that poor community with our armed prescence.
If some other nation did that to us, wouldn't we want to fight back? Of course we would, who wouldn't? That's at least part of why Osama hates the western world.
But the idea to free a society from a dictator and attempt to set up a free society shouldn't be seen as xenophobic.
Agreed, if only that were the case in our present day predicament, which it isn't. Besides, as you just pointed out, we are judged on our actions, not our words. We can call it whatever we want, "setting up a free society," "ousting a dictator," etc., at the end of the day, hundreds of thousands have died needlessly, and not for the ideals with which the war has been justified. The American government doesn't need a Quran to twist to justify their wars, that's what the media is for. I remember some such nonsense about WMD's, the fact that Iraq was apparently a threat to the United States. Never found'em, didn't matter, news didn't cover it, spin was all over it, military action then became about freedom. I wonder how free the people of Iraq feel when armed soldiers from another country can be seen on every city block? I'm willing to bet "not very" would be a common response.
Very easy to view Osama Bin Laden as a fanatical nutjob. Based on his actions, and not his declarations. And to be in his shoes, we would have developed the same ideas, being brought up in the grips of Islam.
Once again, the reverse is true. Plump in any name for "Osama Bin Laden" and "Islam" with whatever philosphical belief drove that person to act, and you can conceivably make out anyone to look crazy. The tactic used by the media to incriminate Bin Laden, and subsequently Islam, in the first place. I know for a fact you have refuted statements of this nature yourself, Dart, when twisters of Christianity were being used as evidence against the entire religion. Even if Osama Bin Laden is crazy (which is not) and has no good reason to be angry with the west (which he does [though he should not act on it]) you simply
can't throw in Islam into the mix and condemn the entire faith. And if you do, then I'm sorry, but Christianity must also be judged accordingly, and the followers of that faith have too much blood on their hands to even try and call it a religion of peace (which it is), and thus western society based on it as writhing in the grips of it. Grounds for war if there ever was one, and also completely illogical.
I'm not trying to exonerate Bin Laden and I'm not trying to demonize western society. We've got problems, so does he. If we're ever going to solve them, we need to put our differences aside, root out any remaining ignorance on each side, put ourselves in the other person's shoes, and let our actions speak louder than our words. If we're bringers of peace we shouldn't carry guns. If Bin Laden's cause truly is just then he shouldn't twist Islam. If we want to understand why invading Iraq wasn't such a good idea we need to understand why there is such a resentment towards the western world, and we need to be ready to admit when we are wrong if we ever expect them to do likewise.
