Somali Muslim clerics protest at "Christian" aid

get their sorry asses OUT of Somalia, OUT of Iraq, and OUT of muslim countries with their evangelizing! thats the LAST thing anyone needs in war torn countries. In Iraq, all they do is put the troops in danger. They are the absolute worst people to be in any of these places, and send the worst possible message of arrogance and manipulation. Gads, they make me sick.

There is a special place in Hell for them.

but the evangelizing is BAD JUJU when they are in a muslim country
You dont prostlytize to people and say "Hi Ill give you food and medicine IF YOU GIVE YOUR HEART TO JESUS"
Thats coercion of the highest order, and plainly ignorant. In Iraq all it does is inflame muslims, and make them want to kill our troops even more.
these people should shut the hell up, give the food and medicine and keep their traps shut about jesus, period.
or get the hell out of there if they cant.

You support this nonsense that religion must be forced and that nations must be protected from outside influence? BTW - there is no 'if you give your heart to jesus' they spread by helping people and handing out materials. The GOOD example they set is what allows them to spread the word they believe in. And if you feel so strongly about how food and medicine should be handed out THEN GO DO IT YOURSELF.

And further, how do these cultural protectionists think the last religion got to a place? Are they Young Earth creationists? What other ideas should Somalis be prevented from hearing?

Just a few days ago Huntington was roundly denounced here for his "Latin Peril" article. Maybe people would have given him more support if immigrants started opening free hospitals.

Personally I would relish seeing many beliefs fade from this world. However I do not believe I have the right to force this on anyone. I defend the right of anyone to believe what they may. However I also recognise that some cultures do not have the same tradition of tolerance of other beliefs that ours does.

It took our culture a long time to get to any semblance of tolerance for others beliefs. We have suffered phases of people killing each other over their beliefs. We still suffer from this to some extent.

Here is the way it works. You figure out who is being protected.

A society that believes they follow the one true word of god is met by another who believe a different word. This new person attempts to explain their belief to this culture. They use the path of giving aid to them as the means to gain access to them. The society believes that what they are trying to teach them is Evil. A real palpable Evil. Their culture and beliefs tell them they must drive out the evil. It must not be permitted to take root. If it persists in remaining they should remove it by force, lethal if necissary.

Now who is being protected?

The status quo. It's being quarantined from any outside input that might cause it to change, adapt, grow.

Your example seems to suggest that one with deeply held beliefs should silence himself in the face society's opposition. If the society rejects him, fair enough. He knows the possible consequences. But I can't just tell him to shut up.

I used to have a music conductor who, as we were tentatively feeling our way through a Bartok piece, bellowed out, "Don't be afraid of dissonance!". Deep.

Considering your conductor metaphor imagine an orchestra where the conductor is toting a sword. Anyone that plays out of tune is immediately butchered along with the rest of their section. Perhaps in this case dissonance may be worthy of fear.

We are not dealing with a lesser people here. We are dealing with a completely different set of social values. One we cannot simply drop our expectations onto. We don't simply walk in and expect them to make their system match ours. Their world view may well not match ours. They may beleive that killing those that challenge their beliefs is perfectly ok. Maybe even commendable.

Dealing with such cutlural differences requires tact. Not zealousness. Not only do such evangelists do themself great harm but they also endanger others doing good works over there but not evangelyzing. They disrupt the trust. They destroy any chance of building bridges into their society and making a real difference.

We should accept that as a completely different set of social values that we cannot simply drop our expectations onto.

Should we deal with that situation with tact?

Or should we send in the National Guard?

there is a different set of social values at play than there is in Iraq?

First off that would suggest that they are in rebellion. They would have to cast off a number of federal laws. Their refusal to conform would be the reason for any armed interaction. But I would hope that the first course of action would be one of tact, rather than just marching in and shooting everyone in sight.

They are wrong as can be and we should not hide behind some PC concept of tolerance or engage in moral relativism.

When the Palestinians send children as suicide bombers we should condemn that for what it is - evil regardless of the evil they may face from Israel.

When Somalians kill Christian Missionaries, it is evil regardless of the insult they see it as.

When the Taliban disfigures women with acid, it's evil regardless of the "offense" she committed.

When the Sudan allows slavery, it's evil.

You can no more tell them their values are wrong than I can tell you there is no god. You can feel it to your very bones but you cannot make them believe what you do. It is how they see the world. You do not fix it by telling them they see the world the wrong way.

It has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with being effective. To borrow the atheist/theist angle I could completely dismantle your belief in god (a bit of egotism on my part perhaps) and you would still believe in god. I could show you every single logical flaw behind your claims and still you would believe. However, if instead I decided that a frontal assault on your beliefs were ineffective I would realise that I have to figure out how you could be made to change yourself. I would set upon a course of building up those ideas which might lead you to free yourself of your beliefs. I would establish a trust between you and myself. And then when you were ready to consider some alternatives I would make myself available to you.

We are not dealing with a lesser people here. We are dealing with a people with a different history. A different way of viewing the world. Like Plato's allegory of the cave. Those we "free" from this society will view our actions in anger and dismay. We are detroyers in their eyes. If we do not procede with caution they will simply rise up and toss us out, thereby ending any possibility of connecting.

Ten years?
Twenty years?
One hundred?

Do we tell the next two generations of women to just wear their burkhas because we don't want to be rude?

No time like the present. But as I said it requires tact. Setting our own fundies loose in their midst is a bad idea. We appeal to the elements of their society that are struggling to be free. We bolster their arguments. We support those that are willing to learn new ways. But setting fanatics loose amongst fanatics is probably not the best idea.

We don't allow their insanity to go unchallenged or uncriticized. If being criticized for mutilating the genitals of millions of young women bothers them, then they should pass. If they don't like Christian missionaries preaching "love thy neighbor," too bad.

but FGM is practised widely in Africa in countries that are not Islmaic - there is NOTHING in the Quran to justify it - it is a CULTURAL practice NOT a religious one.

It is still horrendous and wrong to mutilate the genitals of 4 million women a year. (I've seen that stat, if you challenge, please feel free.)

but MANY MANY Muslim organisations challenge the practise which also goes on in formerly animist communities that have converted to Christianity - however I wouldn't dream of blaming Christianity for it.

I care that we not sit back and let it happen without comment.

your comment was "If being criticized for mutilating the genitals of millions of young women bothers them, then they should pass"

These missionaries rarely say anything about FGM they don't really care if you have a clitoris just whether you have a love of Christ your post insinuates an "us" and "them" attitude that doesn't fit with the actual practice - besides plenty of Muslim groups are well equipped to carry out advocacy against FGM - and they do, who would you listen to if you weer an African women - another African women who understands your cultural background or a western missionary without a clue?

Slavery is another. It's still practiced in parts of Africa. It's wrong. No two ways about it.

Should we attempt to tolerate that?

I know of no one who would, but what we are supposed to do about it? I would suggest we recognize the cultural or economic reasons why they exist, and support native organizations in those countries that oppose those practices. We could shake our finger at these nations and say that they are wrong, and accomplish nothing. Education is the key, but it shouldn't come from people who are willfully ignorant of the culture they would like to educate. Change is most effective when it comes from within, and we should encourage them, whether monetarily or with just words, but at least then we could affect change.

The worse the "it" is, the more we do. If "it" is murder on a genocidal scale, we intervene and kick ass if needed.

If "it" is abuse of women or gays or whoever, we simply embargo all trade with that state until they change things.

Change is great from within. Sometimes we can't wait that long.

I agree with you there, however economic embargoes would accomplish nothing. Can you think of one area where it has been successful? We are talking about cultural values that are oppressive not always government policies. The most you will accomplish with embargoes is resentment from the nation in question, and they will countinue to hold on to those practices all the tighter because of it.

Egypt, for instance, shouldn't be locking up gay men en masse. They get lots of money from us. That is not a "value." It's a government action.

Though, to be honest, many Americans would like to do the same to Homosexuals here too.

All the same, it is stupid and evil.

Yes SOME Muslim Clerics support it, however, NOT all. In many Islamic religious circles it is opposed, vigoriously. Also not all the people who do it are Muslim, Christians and Animists in Sudan, Jews in Ethiopia also practice female genital mutilation. Where is the condemnation of them?

a religious one doesn't matter. It is depraved and a crime against human dignity all the same.

ones supporting it, is ignorance or bigotry, or both. There are Christian Ministers, Rabbis, and Shamans that support the practice too. I just hate the focus on Islam as a source of all these troubles.

That said, everyone who supports barbarism should be condemned.

This was a big deal a few years ago in Norway after a Somali girl brought with her a hidden video camera to her imam.

Suffice to say that his statements were quite shocking.

Islam is IMO one of the leading sources of barbarism today, and should not be absolved.

That said, I am aware that it is incredibly hard to distinguish between cultural and religious practices. In India and Pakistan Islam is often practiced with the background of the local culture.

Islam itself is largely a product of Arab culture, and the spread of Islam has helped spread arabic culture- Which IMO contains both good and bad. The hospitality thing is good. The killing and intimidation and focus on honous just irks me some times.

Why don't I just reverse your statement:

Christianity itself is largely a product of European culture, and the spread of Christianity has help spread European culture-Which IMO contains both good and bad. The Democracy thing is good. The killing and intimidation and focus on European Superiority just irks me some times.

Now I just made, what you could construe as a bigotted statement, yet is it any less true than what you just said?

European culture is the focus put on the sanctity of life. That is I am talking about European of culture of the 20th centure. It has gone through pretty much a revolutionary change in the last hundred years.

And again IMHO is one of the best things about European Christian culture that it is inclusive. Every human being has inalienable rights.

This is a bit crude, but it seems to me that both in Islam and in Judaism, there is an us against them mentality built into the very religion.

No "love thy enemy"

Also with the European "Inclusiveness" LOL think of all the right wing parties whose platform is "Preserving" European Culture, they are rather rude about it to and win offices. Also European nations in the 20th century are responsible for most of the deaths in the 20th century. We have that same "us against them" mentality here in the U.S. otherwise how do you explain the attitudes of most Americans to foriegners. What I said is just as true as what you said, generally, but both are also untrue in referring to EVERY European or Arab Nation, or EVERY individual in all these nations. When was the last time "love thy enemy" was actually practiced in any "Christian" nation, never?

"When was the last time "love thy enemy" was actually practiced in any "Christian" nation, never?"

I agree. I think that the actual number of people that deserves the label "Christian" is incredibly minescule.

I must admit that I tried, and read through the bible, but the bar is just to darned high.


But, I think you are missing my point. I contend the following:

1. It is NOW widely accepted in "European culture" that there should be universal human rights for all human beings

2. Built into Islam is a segregation between Muslims, people of the book (christians and jews), and pagans. It it not good to be people of the book, but it really sucks to be a pagan.

3. In christianity there is no such distinction that I am aware of. The old testament is off course chock full of them, but that belongs to Judaism. The emergence of Christ is a clear break with the jewish only tradition.

(But, it is interesting that the early Christ seemed to have little interest in non-jews. In fact there is one passage in the new testament where Jesus sounds down right racist)

in christianity. However it does vary greatly, just like it does in Islam, refer to my post on the definition of dhimmi. To liberal Christians, members of all religions, as long as they are not openly destructive, share certain beliefs that are universal, and all are paths to God. To Mainstream Churches, all religions have nuggets of the truth, but are ultimately wrong in overall theology. To Conservative and Fundelmentalist Churches, all other religions are either entirely wrong, or influenced by Satan, hence all who are not members of there churches are "Satan worshippers" and ultimately evil, btw this would include other Christian denominations as well. The same could be said in Muslim circles as well, I should know these distinctions well, I don't know how many times I have been called a Satan worshipper by these types of folks.

a muslim (to many fundies they are the same :-) ) is still to be loved and treated well.

I don't care if they think I am going to hell as long as they respect me and treat me nicely in life.

They would call for our heads if we don't repent. Believe me I know, from personal experience, how intolerant and hateful they can be. I had one guy, didn't even know me, who claimed I hate Jesus and he wished he had a gun on him to take out all us "Devil Worshippers". This was at a grocery store, if I wasn't a guy that weighed 200 lbs. then I probably would have had at least on good "Christian" trying to beat me up a day. This is a place that is not even in the Bible Belt.

But, seriously that doesn't sound to good. I guess American is very different from Norway. Here I would have to say that it is Christians who are largely made fun of and looked down upon.

But, about that guy who threatened you..He cannot have read the bible...

Here is my point:

A true Christian fundie (as in actually believes and follows the writings of the new testamen would have to be an overly nice and loving person (if a bit boring)

Whilst a true fundie Muslim would have to be discriminatory on religious grounds, and downright hostile to jews or christians or homosexuals, or their wifes etc. etc.



There is a world of difference between the old testament and the Koran on one hand and the new testament on the other. You might not like it, but it is the truth.

I'm not a fluff-bunny, nor am I obvious, however I do wear a pentacle, and would like to continue to wear it without being accosted by so called Christians trying to "Save" me. It seems that your definition of a fundie Muslim matches the exact definition of a Fundie Christian in the United States, and that is no joke, nor to be taken lightly. "Christians" in my country have killed for their faith, whether it is killing Gays, or Bombing Clinics, they have done it. Let me put it this way, look at this case where religious discrimination led to suicide.

http://www.witchvox.com/passages/tempest.html

On EDIT: Added link: http://www.detnews.com/2001/schools/0103/07/a01-196600.htm

heart breaking and hit very close to home. I have a little sister who is in the hospital after a suicide attempt at the moment.

I'll stop writing about that..


Anyways, I am aware that there are "christians" who are bad, but they don't follow the new testament.

Have you read the new testament?

I tell you what, if Jesus had come to earth in this time and place, I believe he would have hanged out at strip clubs, among satanists, at shabby bars, with islamists and probably in neo-con think tanks :-)

I think my original point stands:

These people are not following the christian religion as per the new testamen or Jesus's words.

Yes I have read the New testament, I was raised Christian (Catholic) and so I am familiar with its words. All members of the Abraimic Faiths pick and choose what passages they would follow most vigiously. I have also read thw Quran, though only an English Language translation, so I have no clue as to what is lost in translation, but I finds its edicts to be no more worse or better than the Old Testament, or the New Testament, but it is up to interepretation just like the other two. The problem in this country is that these people have taken over the Republican Party and are in power here. If you wish to learn more, I'll refer you to these websites.

http://www.cc.org/

http://www.family.org/

These people are NOT fringe in this country, they are increasingly becoming the leaders here, and to be honest, I am scared to death as to what they would attempt to do to me or my friends and family, for our religious and political beliefs. They have memberships in the Millions, and they reach millions more through talk radio.

Or perhaps Denmark, they have recently allowed pagan weddings :-)

But, seriously I disagree with you that all the abrahamic faiths are the same. I think the new testamen and Christ is totally different.

The old testament advocates genocide for goodness sake, and many of the "heros" are in my opinion nothing short of bandits.

I have also read the quran, or rather attempted to read an English copy. It was too difficult and muddled for me, kinda like my posts at DU. God bless you for coping :-)

I'll have a look at the family org website.

I said that the interepretations of the Holy Books are subjective to anyone of those faiths. Some will interepret them one way or another. Actually I would encourage you to read the Quran, its best to come armed with knowledge than not. Also to do it with as little interepretation from others as possible. I'm annoyed at trying to find accurate translations of the Bible. KJV ain't it! If I could afford to move I would. All religions can be classified, even my own, into three nebulious groups, note that they do have overlap:

Orthodox/Conservative

Moderate

Liberal

These groups are defined by the attitudes they display towards both themselves and non-believers. Plus thier study of theology is different, from Liberals who would say that the Bible/Quran/Torah is a Morality Tale, with nuggets of truth, but with other elements that are not direct from God in them. Too Fundlementalists, who take every word as a direct dictation of God, with no room for interepretation, even though they themselves interepret it. As with most religions, it is all subjective, with individuals and leaders taking their own interepretations and labeling them truth or not.

quran since I am more and more becoming negative to practitioners of that faith.

Just as a curiousity...What is your religion and what do you believe in?

Personally, I am an agnostic who wants to be christian and admires Christ.

BTW: if you want to learn about religions in general look at this site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

They have tons of information about damn near all topics, and simply want to educate people on religious tolerance. It was formed by four people I think, an atheist, 2 christians, and a Wiccan (Not me.)

and after my quick perusal I could not find anything wrong with it. In fact I view it positively

Particularly this piece:

"We believe that human life is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions, including the unborn, the aged, the widowed, the mentally handicapped, the unattractive, the physically challenged and every other condition in which humanness is expressed from conception to the grave. "


I might not agree with the unborn part, because I think early term abortion whilst not desirable should be allowed.

But, other than that:

BRAVO!!



But, I must admit that I only looked at it very quickly. Where do you have a problem with them?

You would change your mind rather quickly.

http://www.family.org/pplace/youandteens/a0018257.cfm

http://www.family.org/married/topics/a0025114.cfm

allowed to do that, arent they? You don't like Christianity I presume?

As an aside I always wore a necklace with the symbol of the godess. I loved that necklace, but have unfortunatly lost it.

I think they are entitled to their opinion as long as they don't persecute them.

I think I liked the main tenents of Wicca:

Do what you want as long as you don't harm others. It is almost exactly as a saying in a famous children's book in Norway :-)

And that what you do bad you get repaid 3 fold, sounds slightly biblical.

Their is a difference between believing something and trying to codify it into law. I presume you looked at the Christian Coalition website right? Their members overlap significantly, and they support each other for political purposes. I have no problem with people believing this way, but they should be truthful:

2001-SEP-17: James Dobson attacks Paganism: On his Focus on the Family daily radio program, Dr. James Dobson said: "I also pray that the Lord will bring a national revival that will sweep through our nation and pull us back from the wickedness and the Paganism that's engulfed us in recent years."

This was his response to 911, nice huh?

Wasn't there one famous preacher who said that 911 happened because American had become all decadent and had let homosexuality flourish, and thus had lifted his hand of protection.

Well, in my opinion you are entitles to believe in all sorts of loopy things as long as you follow the Wicca mantra and don't harm others...

2,000year old man-god? n/t-

You might be too sensitive..


I tried to say that as far as I am conserned you can believe in all sorts of loopy things

(i.e. 2000 year old man-gods, Alla, Thor and Odin, The Godess, greek mythology, flying saucers, ghosts, that baseball is exiting etc. etc)


as long as you don't harm others...


Have a nice day Solon :hi:

See ya later...

:hi:

Or lack of reliable information. It doesn't matter to me if it is about my religion or others, for the simple fact is that we need to learn tolerance for non-violent religious beliefs even those we don't agree with. I do not say I wouldn't oppose them, just like Focus on the Family, I don't agree, but I wouldn't even think of censoring them, only opposing them with knowledge and my voice. We see the world through our own lenses, and I would prefer that make mine as clear as possible.

elsewhere

"God has promised wrath, damnation, painful torture and an eternity burning in hell for he who deliberately kills a Muslim... Unjustly killing a Muslim is the gravest crime which cannot be atoned," said the kingdom's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh.


"I tell all Muslims that this act is a sin, it is one of the greatest sins," he said in a statement. "Aiding, calling for, or facilitating the murder of a Muslim is tantamount to involvement in murder and all who do so will be thrown by God into the flames of hell, for so dear is the sanctity of Muslim blood."

This was the statement from a leading cleric in Saudi in response to the latest bombing. Notice the focus on killing muslims, not killing human beings. This statement would not have been made if the Norwegian embassy had been bombed.

Even in Islam their are various factions that view events differently. To say that it is symptomatic of the entire religion or its followers is not wise. I remember a memorial website that was put up right after 911, it showed people putting flowers and blessings on U.S. embassies around the world. One that moved me the most, was this, at the same time that CNN was playing, over and over, the same "celebration" of Palestinians over the Twin Towers being destroyed, I saw on this website a photograph, of two Palestinian women, crying over a memorial to the U.S. There is no monolithic block of any group that thinks the same. I refuse to give in to ignorance or hate due to the words of someone who make the presumption to talk for all Muslims.

My point is simply this. He is a fundie. He follows the quran to the letter. You know the sentence that is often quoted by moderates such as King Abdullah of Jordan, "The one who kills one person is the same as killing all of humanity".... This according to my experience applies only to killing muslims.

I was quite touched btw. by the 911 vigils in Teheran.


In Norway I think many people where shocked to realise that MANY of our islamic community (which is mainly pakistani) celebrated on 911. Little pakistani kids coming to school and not understanding why everyone was sad, because the day before they had beem eating cake and celebrating.

My pakistani collegue tells me he is looking forward to the next 911. What can I say? Nothing. I am just speechless.

I would think he meant all of humanity and not exclusive to just Muslims. We have a large Serbian Muslim community here near my city and they didn't celebrate, they mourned with the rest of the nation. Many Mosques put up American Flags in solidarity with the rest of the citizens. I would advise to your friend that it is WRONG to target civilians for the actions of their government, for they are INNOCENT.

Seriosly Solon... Thanks a lot for the discussion. I need to be going, but I hope we can talk more some other time.

have a good day.

Cheers.

Why are Islamic fundies a good enough example of the "true" Islam, but Christian fundies are not?

Both so-called "fundamentalists" simply cherry-pick inflammatory quotes from their holy books, ignoring context, to justify their fire-and-brimstone rhetoric.

Islam teaches religious tolerance for the other People of the Book (Abrahamic faiths). Non-Abrahamic faiths are not addressed in the Qur'an at all.

So your statement:
Whilst a true fundie Muslim would have to be discriminatory on religious grounds, and downright hostile to jews or christians or homosexuals, or their wifes etc. etc.

Is downright false.

I could paint Christians as pretty viscious creatures by going through the bible. I could also paint Muslems in some pretty nasty shades by refrencing the Koran. Thing is, most adherants of a particular belief are defined not by the letter of the doctrine. Instead it is how they interpret it. And that becomes the problem of trying to define them externally. We only have their doctrine and their actions to work with. If we try to define them based on the doctrine and ignore their behaviour we are only defining our own interpretation of their doctrine and discard them as individuals. Best bet is to look to their actions to define what they believe.

primarily on technology, not on the culture itself.

It doesn't excuse the actions, plus the culture and religion perpetuated it as well. Complacency due to indifference motivated by saying that the Jews killed Jesus are attitudes that are deep in both American and European culture.

do you use the fact that SOME Christian preachers beleive that being gay should be illegal as a judgements against ALL Christians?

or that SOME Christian preachers beleive that women who have abortions should be charged with murder to judge ALL Christians?

There are also SOME Christian preachers that support FGM - so I guess we should condemn all Christian's for that too - the ignorance on this thread is amazing, the ideas some people have about Islam are not to different to what you'd find in freeperland

Kurt Nilsen You say that you should read the "quran since I am more and more becoming negative to practitioners of that faith."

You certainly should read it as you are completely ignorant about it -while you're at it read the bible old and new testament and highlight any passages that could be interpreted as exhortation to violence. There's many, here's a few quotes from the Quran to get you started:

"Those who are Jews, and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day is good, they shall have their reward from their Lord" - II:62.

"There is no compulsion in religion." - II:256

"You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion." - CIX: 6

There are statement that specifically talk of the goodness of people of other faiths, saying that although they recognise Jesus as a prophet not the son of god:

"The Messiah, son of Mary is but an apostle" - V:73, yet God "put in the hearts of those who follow him kindness and mercy." - LVII:27

It speaks of the Torah:

"in which there was guidance and light" and is considered part "of the Book of Allah" - V:70

Unfortunately just like in Judaism and Christianity we are speaking about a translation of a something written over a 1000 years ago in languages that have changed over time or even died out and were written with respect to cultural and social mores of the day - you can pretty much read whatever agenda you wish from the holy writings of each of the three major monotheistic faiths, some people read aggression some people read tolerance.

it's why I'm an atheist all of the holy writings are written so vaguely and are so full of contradictions they can mean anything to anyone.

Edit - For some reason this refuses to edit - which is why the bloody smiley face appears I removed the brackets around the verse numbers but they wont go away

with Israel keeping the Palestinians under military occupation? Perhaps not and my memory is playing tricks on me. But if it is correct, it seems to me there is a pattern with your thinking that includes a very high tolerance for imperialism, especially when it's Arabs and Muslims under the yoke. Make no mistake, these Christian missionaries are engaging in cultural imperialism.

I support a full Palestinian state once the Palestinians opt for peace instead of terror. What the borders are and when that happens is open to negotiation. But the last time there was a negotiation, Arafat walked away and opted for terror.

straight-- Israel invaded and is militarily occupying Palestine, not the other way around. How dare you talk of what the Palestinians MUST do. As the oppressed group they should be under no obligations to do anything-- they should get their land back no questions asked. But I guess it's okay if Israel kills people using tanks instead of suicide bombers and keeps their Apartheid system.

No elected leader speaks for all citizens or voters, but they are the leaders.

When do you think Israel "invaded" Palestine. Careful, how you answer that one. It might show a lot.

I easily talk about what Palestinians must do. They want a state. To get that, there are things they must do. That's just the way the world works. They need Israel's help and Israel has this funny condition about not accepting terror. Gosh.

As for "oppressed," I'll debate that one any day. The Jewish people have about a 1,950 year headstart on the Palestinians.

There is no relation to Apartheid in Israel. Apartheid was a system where a MINORITY controlled a state and ruled a majority. Israel is a democracy. Guess what? The MAJORITY is in charge.

So by your argument, since the Jews were oppressed longer (and not by the Palestinians, mind you) they now have the right to oppress the Palestinians. You don't think that expelling people from their land, demolishing their homes, keeping them under military occupation and setting up laws which keep the Arab population as second-class citizens constitutes oppression?

In 1947, Zionists established a "Jewish" homeland in Israel. Most of these Jews were from other countries, but still felt it was their right to take the land and set up an exclusively Jewish state (a state which defines itself according to the religion of its founders, but not all its inhabitants does not sound particularly democratic to me). To achieve this end, Israeli terrorist organizations such as the Stern Gang (who counted at least 4 future Prime Ministers among its ranks) raided Palestinian villages and killed inhabitants indiscriminately. The terrorized Palestinian population fled, creating millions of refugees living in squalid camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to this day.

Then in 1967, Israel responds to an attack on its borders and seizes the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai (later given back to Egypt). This places millions more Palestinians under military occupation for the next 37 years and counting. Then in 1982, Israel invades Lebanon to oust the PLO. Ariel Sharon allows Lebanese Christian militias to invade the Sabra and Shatlia refugee camps, massacring men, women and children. The IDF surrounds the camps so no one can escape.

In the meantime, Israeli settlements (illegal under international law) are being constructed in the West Bank and Gaza-- and continues to this day. Water and other utilities are re-routed to serve the Jewish settlements, and Palestinian homes demolished because they are too close to these illegal settlements and could serve as launching pads for terrorist attacks. Farmers are not allowed to harvest their crops because they are near the settlements.

Other examples of oppression: Lethal crowd control used on Palestinians but not Jews in similar situations, and just last year Israel banned mixed marraiges between Israelis and Palestinians.

Need more evidence, Muddle? Or would you rather just watch CNN and the read the New York TImes and continue to be brainwashed by the US imperialist media?

Israel has six million people. Five million are Jewish. Do you wish Israel to annex the disputed territories? That's the only way to can get numbers CLOSE to having an Arab majority.

Israel needs a peace treaty to permanently decide the massive number of issues that come with creating a border and a new state such as Palestine. There is no such treaty, nor is Arafat interested in one.

This would undoubtedly constitute an Arab majority if allowed right of return (which is precisely why Israel will not allow it). Arafat is interested in a peace treaty. He's been working on it since 1974. It's Israel which will not bend, especially Sharon-- he figures all the territories are Israel's by birthright, so why give any up? I'm not gonna have anymore arguments about this with you. First of all, that's not what this thread is about. Secondly, you are spouting imperialist propaganda like a brainwashed drone. Not that I blame you for that as the US media puts a lot of negative spin on the Palestinians, but I think I'm not going to waste my time b/c you will not be convinced by anything I say.

You should drop the photo of MLK from your post line, as you have chosen to side with the oppressors. By the way, one of MLK's lieutenant's, Jesse Jackson, fully sides with the Palestinians on this issue-- he's able to see what a struggle for liberation is.

If all Jews from around the world returned, again Israel would be in the majority.

But neither of those is going to happen. So let's deal with reality. Israel -- 5 million Jews, 1 million non-Jews. A Jewish majority runs the nation.

Israel has bent in so many different directions trying to accommodate Arafat that it has muslce cramps. It has managed peace with Jordan and Egypt, but Arafat doesn't want peace, he wants victory. And Israel can't give him that.

Now, talk about spouting crap. That is your post. You want to talk about a fantasy rather than reality. That is the kind of bullshit that hurts the Palestinians. They constantly chase the pot of gold at the rainbow and forget to move on with their lives.

Actually, I have chosen to side with the oppressed -- the Jewish people are the most oppressed on earth.

As for Jesse, he's quite entertaining, but he's no leader.

A common misconception peddled by Israel apologists. I know many, many Jews who are HIGHLY critical of Israeli policy, and some who oppose Zionism altogether based on political principle. You'd be surprised how many Jews are in the Palestinian liberation movement right here in America.

2. Being oppressed does not give you carte blanche to oppress others (especially those who had nothing to do with your historical oppression). If it was Jews oppressing Russians or Germans, I might be more sympathetic (although I would still consider it wrong), but Arabs have been very tolerant of Jews (at least compared to Europe) up until the esatblishment of Israel.

3. You have not contradicted one fact I introduced as evidence for the oppression of the Palestinians other than to say I'm quoting from some sort of propaganda book and that Jews are oppressed, so that justifies everything Israel is doing. Both false arguments that prove nothing.

Israeli system Apartheid. He should know, he once, like Arafat, was reviled as a "terrorist" leader. Might also interest you to know Jesse Jackson sang "We Shall Overcome" with Arafat. I repeat, you should take that MLK photo off your signature as long as you are arguing that the Palestinians are not oppressed and that Israel is not their oppressor-- you not only dishonor his memory, but the memory of the entire civil rights struggle.

Mandela is still angry that Israel had diplomatic and trade relations with the old SA government. So what he says is wildly tainted.

South Africa was a white MINORITY ruling a black MAJORITY. Israel is a Jewish MAJORITY ruling an Arab MINORITY.

As for my avatar, fuck off. If you are black, then maybe you understand what it is like to remember a man who gave you your freedom. If you are not, then you have no understanding what he means to me.

So again, fuck off.

(Mods, if you delete this, please delete BOTH of the personal attacks above as well. This is only a response.)

And if you were Arab-American maybe you could understand better what the Palestinians' struggle for liberation means to us. But I wish that weren't so. I wish Americans could see the horrible things Israel is doing to the Palestinians without having to be Arab to understand it. Unfortunately, the brainwashing of the American media makes that nearly impossible. Go around the rest of the world, and you will find people have a different take than in America.

In theory we could be on the same side. But of course I actually expect the Palestinians to set aside terror and accept peace.

and explain what exactly my problem with your viewpoint is.

1. Your statement makes it seem like Israel's actions (including murdering children) are justifiable, while Palestinian suicide bombings are not. Neither is justifiable when civilians are killed. It seems the only difference between "terrorism" and "defense" is the manner in which the payload is delivered-- When Israel fires rockets from an Apache (knowing damn well civilians will be killed) it is defense, when a Palestinian walks a bomb into a cafe that Israeli soldiers frequent and blows himself up (also aware of the civilian casualties) it is terrorism. Lets not forget that most (although not all) of the Palestinian suicide bombings have targeted soldiers, police and armed settlers-- however, like when Israel attacks, these bombings are normally carried out in civilian-rich areas, so there are many innocent victims (which the US news media focuses on rather than the bomber's primary target).

2. Even if it's only Palestinian terrorists who can be blamed for the violence, it is morally unjustifiable to continue the oppression of an entire people based on the actions of a few. That is collective punishment, which is not only in violation of international law, but ethical principle. Don't forget Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions and international laws than any country in the world.

I guess my point is this, Muddle-- you have a right to denounce Palestinian terrorism, but you seem to lay all the blame on the Palestinians. That isn't fair, Israel shares a lot of the blame. It is especially unfair because from a simple power relationship standpoint, it is the Palestinians who are powerless and the Israelis who are powerful. I don't believe such a heavy burden of reponsiblity should be placed on a powerless people, most of whom just want to live their lives in peace with dignity, civil rights, and economic stability, and have no interest in strapping a bomb to their chest.

Now that's my take on the subject. Despite my prior rantings, I do not actually believe your views on this subject are extreme. Sadly, I think they are all too common in this country. It is my views on the subject that are considered extreme in America, where in the rest of the world my arguments would be considered mildly liberal.

1. Israel doesn't murder children. It has two choices. Either let Palestinian terrorists murder Israeli women and children unchecked or go after them. If it goes after them, because the Palestinians won't stop them, then innocents inevitably get caught in the crossfire. No state would just sit idly by. It is clearly self defense, just the same as police going after gang thugs and murderers. And the reason it happens in civilian areas is because that's where the fucking terrorists hide.

2. Whoever said the Palestinian terrorists were "few." Or that their actions were alone. The majority of Palestinians support the terror. Thousands are involved in the actions or funding of such terror.

Yes, Israel is in violation of UN accords. Shocker. The UN is made up of such wonderful nation states as Syria, Libya, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Funny, they are all upset at Israel, but no one cares that Syria conquered Lebanon and runs it like a puppet state.

I have NEVER laid all of the blame on the Palestinians. There is tons to go around including enough for Israel, the U.S., the UN, the Arab world and the EU.

The Palestinians are not powerless. They in fact have the power to stop all this. They choose not to do so.

Just shows how cheap an image is. Is there a true split in the democratic party between non-violent ideologies and violent ones?

methods towards social change exclusively, and those who believe armed resistance or self-defense are sometimes necessary. Check out the boards on gun control (it won't take you long to figure out what side of the fence I fall on). If you're asking whether some Democrats are thinking about stockpiling arms and organizing a rebel army-- no I don't think that's the case in the Party or on this Board. Also, this Board is not exlusively Democratic stalwarts. There are also progressive independents (who lean or sometimes vote Democrat) here.

As to the title of your post, it may be correct, but as bad as us Arab-Americans have been getting it here (especially post 9/11), I'd rather be here than in Israel. At least we Arabs have SOME rights and economic opportuniy in America.

How well would you be treated in Saudi Arabia for daring to have an opposing view? Syria? Egypt?

the occupied population. The palestinians flunked.

I'm not defending terrorist attacks against civilians. I'm just saying Israel needs to withdraw and allow the right of return. No damn excuses. As my grandma used to say "two wrongs don't make a right". You don't rob someone's land, keep them under the gun and oppress them, then act surprised when some members of the population launch terrorist attacks against you and use this as a reason to keep the people oppressed.

You write from the propaganda book, chapter and verse. Sure, Israel's just gonna go ahead and fall on its sword and destroy its nation.

In what universe?

away my suicide bomb equipment (which, as you know, is given to all Arabs at birth). Then they showed me Jesus's love and how we should support the Israelis in their strugggle against the evil Muslims even though all the Jews are going to Hell b/c they don't believe in Christ. Then I jumped up and said: "I have seen the error of my godless ways. Praise Jesus!" Then we handled snakes, spoke in tongues, and started wiring bombs for abortion clinics (apparently it's okay by God as long as you don't commit suicide in the process). Then I woke up and remembered why I don't believe in God or religion-- no tangible scientific evidence exists to support belief in God and most religious institutions are reactionary impediments to social progress.

evil the Muslim faith is...

Considering the christian faith is entirely based upon the belief that women are the instruments of the devil himself, are inherently evil and are responsible for mankind falling into a state of sin.

Christianity puts women in burkahs, too.

I sure as heck didn't. Actually, most Muslims live good lives and raise their families in a loving, traditional atmosphere.

RADICAL Islam is a problem however.

in the countries or territories where they take place, you are wrong. Should people condemn the United States for Oklahoma City? Should we as a people be held responsible for all crimes commited in this country because of hate?

Ancient Christian saying.

So much as I am objecting to the people who view free speech as some sort of crime when it crosses cultural boundaries. Rushdie is still bitter at the European left for their muddled appeasement in his case.

Could you be more patronizing than saying "We are not dealing with a lesser people here"? That is the point. Their culture isn't made of glass -- it's not going to shatter under the impact of a few missionaries. People talk like the Somalis are a bunch of bubble-boys.

Your poisoned well argument is much stronger. But I don't think tact requires silence (read the article) and I don't think some individual cock-ups negate the value of open communication.

To hell with those people. Think they're better than everyone else because they've got a different holy book-- the right holy book. Freedom of religion for the country's native population if they wish to prosteltyze is one thing. Letting white missionaries from Europe and America come in to preach and "civilize" is quite another.

TV, radio, movies, newspapers, the Internet, religion, politics, books, morality, etc.

So what?

Hell, DU is cultural imperialism if you aren't Democratic or American.

If people are so unsure of their opinions or beliefs that they can't be challenged, too f---in' bad.

"If people are so unsure of their opinions or beliefs that they can't be challenged, too f---in' bad."

does this apply to yourself when people challenge a beleif in God? You've mention before that people shouldn't state that "GOd is a myth" as it's offensive to Christians and other theists?

Surely if you're not that unsure of your beleifs that you can't be challenged?

It's how you do it that pisses me off.

Calling my religion a myth is offensive. Asking me to discuss it is healthy debate.

But obviously if you are an atheist, there is no substantive difference between a Greek myth and the Bible. It's not meant as a slur, simply an observation. If you tak it as a slur, that's on you.

But obviously if you are white, there is no substantive difference between one word and another. It's not meant as a slur, simply an observation. If you take it as a slur, that's on you.

Sound familiar?

One is an ethnic slur rather than an observation. To take your example, if someone calls me a "Sandnigger" b/c I'm Arab I'm gonna bash their face in, but if you say I'm misinformed or a lost soul b/c I don't have Jesus's love, I won't be offended as an Atheist-- I'll just think you're dead wrong.

You just don't like how bad it looks.

atheists do not believe that belief in God is a reasonable belief, otherwise they would probably hold the belief themselves. So what is religion to us? A myth. No slur there. And it's ridiculous to equate this with calling someone a "nigger". I disagree with you on a lot, but at least we're having productive debates and you are offering intelligent (albeit imperialist) arguments. But you should just drop this one, it's patently false.

A Definition of "Myth"
WHAT IS A MYTH?
A myth is a traditional story whose author is unknown. It has its roots in the primitive folk-beliefs of cultures and uses the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain a culture's view of the universe and the nature of humanity.

I actually admit that my beliefs are based, in part, on myths and legends of the past, wouldn't that be true of all religions?

d'you reckon some people faced with Christian missionaries might feel the same way.

That by telling them they should embrace Christ you're telling them to reject their own version of God. Or in the cases I've seen telling them that their God is nothing but the stories made up by an evil man.

I can't beleive you don't see the hypocracy in this stance Muddle - do not criticise or slander my religion + let the missionaries convert in the same breath??!!??

We have hundreds or thousands of different types of churches or religions in the U.S. Should we stop them teaching?

He's saying nobody should be offended? What's wrong with arguments?

but if it's me - I'm reference several threads in which Muddle has been offended when people refer to Christianity as a myth - yet he supports "aid" workers telling people THEIR religion is a myth

is "white man's burden" crap. Look at the history of Christianization in Africa and how it was tied to colonialism. Not the same history for TV, newspapers, the internet or DU. One has a specific and idenifiable history of oppression and exploitation in Africa, the others do not.

The Internet, media, movies, TV, radio, etc. all cross borders. To pretend otherwise is silly.

The history of EVERYTHING is tied to colonialism because that used to be the way of the world. So what?

justice for none.

He really enjoys telling me all the faults with Christianity.

Yet, he just about threatens with violence if I was to say anything about good old Mahomet.

you have "quite a good friend" who often threatens you with violence -somehow I'm having a hard time beleiving you.

He is one of the most hospitable, kind and interesting people I have met in along while.

What I particularly appreciate is is deep interest in world affairs particularly with regards to events in the middle east and on the subcontinent. A mutual interest as I am sure you have figured out.

That said, when it gets to Mahomet, it is off limits. That's just the way it is.

I guess I respect that to some degree, even though I don't particularly like it. In fact, I resent it.

But, there you go.

I was going to respond in much the same why. Nice to see that some one else from the Old Dominion is on the Boards spreading a little common sense.

Keep up the good work.

ethical behavior. If it were a strictly secular offering--without the obvious bribery to these poor, very poor people, then I would say Christians are practicing what they preach.

AS it is, the carrot on the stick, almost literally, is almost obcene.

A drowning man swims to the nearest shore.

Not all missionaries push their beliefs while they serve. There certainly are some that do so. But there are also a host of missionaries that organize around their beliefs to do good in the name of goodness alone. No strings. No pushing. No indoctrination.

Be angry at the missionaries that do initiate cultural conflict. But be careful how wide a stroke you paint them with so you do not cover those doing real good.

Those are our sheep dammit...hands off Infidel!

a comment made by a Catholic Bishop that was upset about Muslems evangelzying in traditional Catholic lands.

People are natural resources to religions, it's not surprising when the big "companies" get upset with "heathunting" within their own turf.

Thats the FIRST thing people need in war torn countries. Evangelizing is spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. That God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

Happy Earth Day. God Bless You.

yep

"its the FIRST thing people need in war torn countries. Evangelizing is spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. That God so loved the world that he gave his only son"

they don't need dialougue, a ceasefire, reconciliation, food, shelter, treatment for their wounds, repatriation or any of those silly things - what they need is Jebus Key-christ! :puke:

to let other religions know that Christians believe Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE light? (and the ONLY way) Give it a rest, just because you believe that, doesn't mean everyone has to believe it.

Sorry, just tired of it.

It's, you know, part of our religion.

It's part of some interpretations of Islam that apostates must be killed, if I remember correctly. Should we not call that ridiculous because it's "part of their religion?"

The fact that Christians feel they have a divine mandate to go out and "convert the heathens" does not make such an action any better; it still pisses people off, it's still against the law in some countries (though it shouldn't be), and it still makes diplomacy harder.

Nice.

One is that most religions checkered past, technically Christianity practices the same as Islam in this respect. In the past it was even practiced, even today with extremists is it practiced, whether it's a Christian Abortion Bomber, or Al-Queda. Same basic beliefs drive both, we need to recognize that so we can defuse it.

- in some places it does almost mean the same thing. In enclaves following sharia law converting away from Islam - is unforgivable - and (in the most extreme cases) punishable by death.

Thus if one just goes for conversion - rather than diplomatic/international pressure to moderate the system and laws (as in preventing the stoning of the woman guilty of adultery in (I believe) Nigeria) - than in some places one is potentially condemning those being converted to death. Just a tragic reality.

the reason why so many feel the need to tell you what they think of that. Not all Christians believe they need to press their belief on others to the same extent. Some push to hard and create a hostile environment for others. I don't expect you would take it too kindly if I took it upon myself to explain the glorious freedom of being an atheist to your children whenever the opportunity presented itself.

That's a pretty strong action.

many people who have suffered in past generations at the hands of missionaries view them dimly. A large majority of the "charity" organisations are simply money making (for the church) and missionary organisations that use the words "aid" and "charity" because they know the PR isn't so good these days for missionaries. I was personally soured on this topic by one of the largest "charities" in the foreign "aid" business - I wont name them as they made my life hell for two years until I beat them legally and have no deisre to start the drama's again - suffice to say their main aim was proslytising, the aid was just a means to an end. They had been notified by community elders in certain places that the people they hired were suspected of child abuse but as long as they preached it was OK - they held back funds from some communities and diverted them to others that has shown more interest in Christianity or had built churches, they told women and children they would burn in hell - amongst other things.

I'm not saying fro a second that this abuse of charity doesn't happen within organisations with Jewish/Islamic/Hindu etc bases - I'm sure it does, this isn't a Christian bash - but a hypocricy bash - I just happen to have experiences within the Christian aid sector.

If you want to feed people and give them medical care does it matter what religion they are?

Can you imagine a future where the US has experienced some form of tragedy and has been reduced to thirld world status - the entire country is struggling to feed it's children, and the people who are supposedly "helping" you are telling you that the reason you are suffering is that God is punishing you, that you need to convert to Islam/Hinduism,Taoism (whatever) otherwise your children will continue to suffer for your wicked ways? Do you think it would cause a bit of angst maybe?

Many liberal Christians read that passage with the word "A" rather than "THE".

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

did this. I apologize if I offended anyone. I just meant that, from my observations, other religions don't do try to do this as often as Christians. :)

for they do not know what they do.

The people giving the "Smile. God loves you!" stickers. Or the people calling for the death of aid workers.

Why is barbarism always accepted?

It's more along the lines of an internal struggle, or of overcoming obstacles, do NOT take it as meaning violence is necessary. Though it does have context in war, people like Osama Bin Laden have misused it to forward their agendas. Very similar to how people like Falwell and Robertson would like to "save" the heathens. To most Christians it means trying to peacably convert people, to them its "convert or die". Also, if these aid workers are denying aid to those who refuse to convert, then in my opinion they are no better than Osama. Whether they are or not I do not know.

Having met hundreds of missionaries over the years, I would say 99.99 percent would never refuse aid to someone.

This is what drives me crazy on this board when it comes to Christianity. Everyone bases their opinion on Jerry Falwell as if he is the bloody Pope of America. He's not.

These are probably husband and wife teams who have dedicated their lives to living in poverty all over the world doing what they believe to be their calling.

No I did not, don't be so defensive, there are bad "Christians" along with good ones. I mention Jerry as an example of an extremist, to say he represents Christianity is like saying Osama represents Islam. Most people on this board would agree with me, I would rarely if ever generalize on any group of people, and if you catch me at it, correct me please. People on this board take great pains to distinguish between the "Fundies" versus mainstream Christianity, but still many take offense, when none is really needed. Besides critisizing the leadership of a Religion is not the same as critisizing all members of that Religion.

Fundies seem to be anyone who actually believes in their religion as opposed to paying it lip service.

and a limited time to talk about them. Thus we invent words that cover broad categories. Unfortunately we sometimes cover too much ground in these broad terms. Instead of looking for a potential insult in other's words try to figure out what they mean specifically and advise them that they may be harming their own argument in the use of the term.

My definition of a Fundy is someone who is generally intolerant to those they view as "unsaved" to the point of either verbal harassment or physical violence. Also those who would change the laws in this country to try to establish themselves in a preferential position within government to influence ALL citizens. Compared to some Fundamentalists who are genuinely concerned for those around them and are deeply religious and are deeply concerned about others. The ones who take the term: "Judge not, lest you be Judged." seriously. This of course applies to both liberal and mainstream Christians as well.

John Ashcroft isn't even a Fundamentalist by this definition.

That is the definitive summary of the beliefs and attitudes of the Religious Right and the Christian Coalition. They would like to tear down the wall separating church and state, so they can dictate their version of Christianity to everyone, as well as their morality.

is anyone who adheres to the principles set out in the Presbyterian pamphlet, "The Fundamentals", written in the early 20th Century. Today the term serves as an umbrella for any number of denominations, most of which fall under the subcategory of "evangelical". Pentecostalism, which is Robertson's creed, meets the criteria.

The problem with Fundamentalism is that it is not simply a religious belief. It's a political system, a now rather vast organization of Christians with specific cultural and political goals. Under this broader definition, Falwell, Graham, Ashcroft and even * qualify for the label. This political aspect of Fundamentalism is not something that grew around the doctrine, nor is it coincidental; "The Fundamentals" was written specifically to address the hardcore believers' concerns about the growing influence of science, secularism and humanism in the culture, and was meant to be a rallying call to Christians to overturn these trends and return the country to its primal Puritan roots. The oldest and most well-known vehicle being used for this purpose is Creationism. (Yes, it was the Fundamentalists who gave us the Scopes Trial.) These people have nothing but contempt for our country, for the philosophical ideals of the Enlightenment out of which it grew, and for anyone who doesn't observe strict adherence to the dominance hierarchies laid out in the Bible.

I actually believe in my religion, I do not simply pay it lip service, I have felt and used the power of it; but I would never force my beliefs down anyone's throat the way these people do. I have no doubt that there are a number of well-meaning followers in the movement. I've known hundreds of Fundamentalists; I grew up in a Fundamentalist church and my ex-wife still attends the Assemblies of God. Some of these people are okay as people, but their obsessive adherence to the religion sends them over the edge when it comes to real relationships with other people who don't think like them. They are dangerous; some of them are even genuine nutcases. I do not trust them.

I don't know why Christians get so offended when nonbelievers point out the failures of the Church. Love and faith are neither offensive, nor offended (Paul says that somewhere). There is power in love, but none in anger. So why not live in the former, instead of the latter?

Dhimmi
A Dhimmi, or Zimmi (Arabic ذمّ?), as defined in classical Islamic legal and political literature, is a person living in a Muslim state who is a member of an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion. The term literally means "protected person."
Etymology

The root of "dhimmi" comes from the Arabic root "dh-m-m", where "dhimma" means "being in the care of".

Background

The term initially applied to "People of the Book" living in lands under Muslim rule, namely Jews and Christian, and was extended to Zoroastrians, Mandeans and even Hindus.

The dhimmi concept was comparatively tolerant by the standards of the time. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society. An excellent example is the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain where Christians and Jews prospered. Maimonides, by some considered the greatest Jewish philosopher and Talmudic sage, lived in Muslim Spain, North Africa and Egypt. As late as the 16th century, religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire.

Modern vs. Customary Practice

The attitude towards dhimmis varies from Muslim to Muslim; for most, it is a purely theoretical issue, as very few Islamic nations (Iran being a notable exception) actually have any legally defined special status for dhimmis at the present. For that reason, the term itself is relatively rarely used in the present Muslim world, and is unfamiliar to many Muslims.

Muslims living in less conservative or more multiconfessional nations typically present the dhimmi as being equal to Muslims. For example, one book published in Pakistan claims:

Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasises neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow "Scriptuaries". (Suzanne Haneef, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979, p. 173.

In contrast, Muslims living in more traditionalist or monocultural nations, particularly those that practice Sharia, usually present the dhimmi as being a second to Muslims. For example, one book published in Saudi Arabia argues:

In a country ruled by Muslim authorities, a non-Muslim is guaranteed his freedom of faith.... Muslims are forbidden from obliging a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, but he should pay the tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practice his polytheistic rituals openly. (Abdul Rahman Ben Hammad Al-Omar, The Religion of Truth, Riyadh, General Presidency of Islamic Researches, 1991, p. 86.)

Google is your friend:
Source: http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Dhimmi

I already explained what the word means, if you wish to remain willfully ignorant that's your business, but do not pass judgement on anyone for something you have no understanding of.

friend of mine. I am well aware of the different meanings of Jihad.

But, Shees, when the muslim leaders in Somalia are threatening with Jihad, I can guarantee you that it does not involve bending over extra deep in the five daily prayers.

Believe the apologist blather if you will, and think of yourself as well informed.

A Norwegian playwright called Ibsen one wrote,

"If you remove the life-delusions from the average person, you ruin his life"

violence, I would condemn them the same as you. However I do not see evidence of that in this instance. Also claiming it is apologist does not hold water, I am under no delusions that they are perfectly good, by any means.

I would interpret that as a direct threat. If it is not, and is some other form of struggle without threats of violence I respect that right as much as I respect the rights of missionaries.

I am just a bit annoyed at the moment, because we are having journalists being beaten up and threatened because they have written something that was opposed to Islam.

Norway is also I think one of the few countries in which the Rushdie affair turned violent and a famous publisher was shot after deciding to publish the satanical verses.

I fear that this level of intimidation, which btw is even stronger within the Islamic communities amongs their own, is unacceptable, and it is the duty of every good man to fight against it. But, I have to tell you, I would not dear to wear a large star of david around my neck in a night out in oslo.

That is regrettable.

Can you imagine the threats and violence anyone who would publish opinions or facts that oppose Christianity in let's say the Bible Belt of the United States. Just as you would not where a Star of David in an Oslo at night. I would not where my Pentacle around my neck when out on the town in Montgomery Alabama. Both are regrettable, but intolerance, hatred, and violence seem to be values that both religions share at the extremes.

Fundamentalist (In the bad sence) have pretty much been defanged in western Europe. It took many people many years to accomplish that. It has been a fight largely undertaken by socialists and progressives.

With that battle largely won, I feel it is riddicolous to give Islam a free pass.

In my opinion did socialism loose its way sometime in the late 60's to seventees.

The proletareat just did to darned well for themselves, so instead a new group of oppressed had to be located in order to keep the marxist dream alive. Since then, many give any third world country a free pass, which is dead wrong IMO. In fact, it is a crime.

Usually if you attack someone for their beliefs, they will only hold onto them even stronger than before. Strong arming people into culture change can have unexpected results, leading to oppression of them that is not better than the regime or culture that came before.

and intimidation and other breached of human rights, there should be ZERO tolerance.

If you put an Imam (like the guy caught on hidden camera) in jail, is that persecution?

No, it is justice.

Would it cause other problems and inflame people? Possibly, in fact I'd say it is likely. Yet, what is the alternative?

Doing what countries like Britain and Norway has tried uptil now?

Well, that policy have failed miserably.

European politicians of all stripes and colors are starting to realise this, hence the french imams being sent out of the country as well as the hijab bans popping up.

Just that we should be consistant in the support of freedom. The nations that such practices take place in are politically opressive as much as culturally oppressive. Think about this, if the U.S. government supported RAWA and helped finance it in coalition with other nations, even a few Arab and Muslim ones, then the Taliban could have possibly have been toppled without us firing a shot. Lasting change must be done within, or it will not last long. Claiming "White Man's Burden" in trying to change these nations will not help, and could be worse for us and the citizens there. Hell with supporting RAWA then we could have possibly prevented 911 with a diplomatic solution that would have left Osama without a home and easier to catch. Declaring an open "War" on such thing will not help without legitamacy being established from leaders that oppose those practices that are actually from them. Think of Japan, could we have possibly help establish legitamacy in its democratic government without the Emporer's support? Japan could have easily became our first Vietnam if we had attempted to topple the Emporer, nation building actually worked then, but we did not do it alone. We need to identify the groups who are pro-democracy and for freedom for all that actually understand what they are up against, or we will fight an endless war.

Perhaps my idealism is naive and misguided, I have to admit that. But, I hated reading about the Taliban rule pre 911. I hate reading about the situation in Zimbabwe. I am appalled to follow the situation currently in Sudan. Observing the situation in Saddam's Iraq was gutwrenching to quote the President.

I admit to being a Tony Blair supporter, and Tony Blair echoed my views on the recent meeting of International Socialist parties where he stated that the International community should get together through the UN and create a REAL world "policeman". A military force that could go into Sudan and clean that up, go into Zimbabwe etc.

Before there is a REAL international law enforcement process the world is guaranteed to be Hobbesian hell hole.

In the absence of such a force I guess I would have to support your approach.

As far Japan, as sad as it is to say, the Emperor was probably very mallable after having seen two nuclear bombs explode in his neighboorhood.


I also want to make a distinction between changing other countries and upholding the laws of our own. In the latter case there should definetly be Zero tolerance for unlawful activities hidden behind cultural or religious excuses, or all we have fought for an won are for nought.

idea. My point is that in order to change the practices of these nations, you need to have legitamacy with them. I find the practices of these nations as appaling as you, but can the cure be as bad as the disease? If, under the U.N., an international force was formed, I would say it should be for the enforcement of Human Rights, however the problems associated with it is this: not every nation on the Security Council values Human Rights or democracy. Think of the United States alone, and the abuse it deal out by trying to use such a force to enforce its national interests. Also, even when properly used, such a force can face ferouis opposition from those they wish to save. If such a force invaded Sudan to free its slaves, and killed many of them in the process, how would the rest feel. I have a jaded view of the U.N. as an institution, I feel it needs either reform or replacement. Not to diminish its accomplishments, however it doesn't have real teeth, and its legitimacy is being questioned as a pawn of the BIG 5.

ON EDIT: Corrected Grammar.

world organisation needs to be formed and all non-democracies should be booted out and only have observer status. That would immediately make for a much leaner organisation.

It is interesting to see how many muslims absoultely hate the UN as a pawn for the USA and Israel, whilst Israel and many rightwingers think it is a pawn of the arab world against the USA and Israel. That gives it a little bit of credibility in my book.

But, what do you think of Iran, which by all means is a crappy theocracy. I even contribute money to the democratic dissidents. Do you think it is right like the EU, and even the UK (shame on you Tony) cosy up with the Mullahs.

I mean. You don't have to declear war against Iran, but you don't have to go the other way and suck up to the Ayatollahs. I was ashamed when the Norwegian PM entertained some iranian higher ups in order to get our hands on some big oil contracts.

I feel like many European countries like dealing with Mullah's because it provides a giant profit opportunity uncontested by the American giant firms due to the American embargo.

I say support the students, not the Mullahs, that is a perfect opportunity for the democracies of the world to actually live up to their own ideals, and not be hypocrits. Then again I would say that we need a more passive approach at the same time, because think of the last time a democracy messed with Iran. The Shah and now the Mullahs, both Britian and the United States are guilty of that situation in the past, and we should be careful in what we do in the future.

"democracy cannot be brought in from outside"

Well, that statement is patently wrong. However, I would accept an adapted version of it:

"democracy built from within is very much preferable"

What is interesting is that democracy and reform is being talked about now in the arab world probably more than at any point in history. Small scale reforms are being implemented, the press is becoming slightly freer.

I think it would be best if the US could just stand away and where possible let it play out by itself. I have been following the Saudi press lately and read a saudi blog, and it does seem that in all the evil corrupted practices there are small small steps that can be seen which are positive. There is right now a huge debate in Saudi about the treatment of women due to a famous tv presenter who was beaten half to death by her husband. This sort of stuff was never talked about, now it is being debated openly, and members of the Royal family are engaged in the cause.

Is that the Middle East had a democracy, and it was then overthrown by the U.S. and Britian, and then the Shah was deposed for a regime that was not any better, and worse in some places. It's probably more apropriate to say that democracy cannot be brought at the point of the sword, its not like you can say "VOTE, OR ELSE!"

I think there is too much focus on the ballot box. There isn't IMHO anything inherently good about democracy in this strictest sense.

There is a lot more too it, and IMO primarily centered on human rights and protections for minorities.

I am just in the process of reading parts of Gibbon's the decline and fall of the roman empire. I am reading the parts pertaining to the early Islamic conquests. And what is interesting is that these conquests brought with it Arabic culture to the conquered peoples. However, in the case of Iran and what is now Turkey this did not happen to the same extent. I happen to believe that it is arab culture and not Islam by itself which is slighly problematic in relations to democracy. I think that the prospects of a well functioning democracy is higher in Iran than in Iraq. For several reasons. Off course a more homogenous population helps, but also persian culture is different.


hmm, Totally off topc..There has been an explosion in North Korea,

I wouldn't have seen him as a bad leader, just that he couldn't wrap his mind around the fact that one democracy would try to overthrow another. The point of democracy is that it is self correcting, that is if a bad leader is elected, the people have the opportunity to kick him or her out without bloodshed. I'll look in LBN for the North Korea situation.

very rash and stupid to nationalise the foreign owned assets in the Oil industry. I know it is more complicated than the way I portray it, but in the end it ammounts to stealing. Or at least so it would be perceived, and he should have forseen that.

With more patience, he could have made sure that the Iranian people profited from the natural resouces without virtually declearing war on Britain.

well - you know...

then again - perhaps you don't...

a religion with over a BILLION followers with ONE PERSON and consider that you are "well aware" of the meaning of Jihad. ROTFLMAO

Has it occured to you that you are ONLY well aware of this ONE persons interpretation. BTW is this the same Pakistani you variously refer to as a colleague, a friend AND a GOOD friend.

I would guess that the Somali cleric was threatening with violence which is a reasonable guess.

You think he had no such violent intentions, which is also a possibility.

Let's leave it at that.

knowledable about Islam as a rather close friend. But, I have spent many hours reading parts of the Koran (english translation), and spent countless hours on the net reading and learning. I would reccoment islamicity.com, a good pro-islamic website.

"4/21/04 Somalia (Reuters)
Islamic Extremist Group Vows to Kill All Somalian Christians
The Mogadishu based Somali fundamentalist group, Kulanka Culimada, accused Christian aid workers in Somalia of spreading Christianity in the coastal city of Merca. Reuters reported on April 21 that the militant group said if the Christianization in Somalia does not stop, “the Somalia people have a right to jihad…the politically influential group based in the capital Mogadishu said in a statement issued on Tuesday.” A widely read Somali website, Hiiraan, posted April 20 a press release from the militant group signed by Sheikh Nur Barud, the vice chairman of the Kulanka Culimada. The Sheikh said in an edict “Somalis must come out on April 22 to protest against the Christianization in Somalia.”3 The Sheikh also accused Christian aid workers of “planting Somali Christians in the country.” Sheikh Nur Barud who was the key figure in this press conference said “Some Somalis who claimed to be Christians went to attend the Somali reconciliation conference . These Somalis are apostates and they will be killed upon their return to Somalia.” The fiery Kulanka Culimada was founded in February 1991. Most of the key leaders in this group are graduates from Islamic seminaries in Saudi Arabia. A Somali reporter from Himilo online interviewed Sheik Nur Barud in November 2003. The Sheikh reiterated in this interview “all Somali Christians must be killed according to the Islamic law. A Muslim can never become a Christian but he can become an apostate. Such people do not have a place in Somalia and we will never recognize their existence and we will slaughter them.” The Sheikh concluded his interview by saying that “Somalis are 100% Muslim and they will always remain so.”"

http://www.persecution.org/news/index_news.html

"4/21/04 Somalia (Reuters)
Islamic Extremist Group Vows to Kill All Somalian Christians
The Mogadishu based Somali fundamentalist group, Kulanka Culimada, accused Christian aid workers in Somalia of spreading Christianity in the coastal city of Merca. Reuters reported on April 21 that the militant group said if the Christianization in Somalia does not stop, “the Somalia people have a right to jihad…the politically influential group based in the capital Mogadishu said in a statement issued on Tuesday.” A widely read Somali website, Hiiraan, posted April 20 a press release from the militant group signed by Sheikh Nur Barud, the vice chairman of the Kulanka Culimada. The Sheikh said in an edict “Somalis must come out on April 22 to protest against the Christianization in Somalia.”3 The Sheikh also accused Christian aid workers of “planting Somali Christians in the country.” Sheikh Nur Barud who was the key figure in this press conference said “Some Somalis who claimed to be Christians went to attend the Somali reconciliation conference . These Somalis are apostates and they will be killed upon their return to Somalia.” The fiery Kulanka Culimada was founded in February 1991. Most of the key leaders in this group are graduates from Islamic seminaries in Saudi Arabia. A Somali reporter from Himilo online interviewed Sheik Nur Barud in November 2003. The Sheikh reiterated in this interview “all Somali Christians must be killed according to the Islamic law. A Muslim can never become a Christian but he can become an apostate. Such people do not have a place in Somalia and we will never recognize their existence and we will slaughter them.” The Sheikh concluded his interview by saying that “Somalis are 100% Muslim and they will always remain so.”"

http://www.persecution.org/news/index_news.html

counterintelligence.

Here's your food and medicine. Now don't be ungrateful, say "Thank you Jesus." Say it... SAY IT... SAAAAAAAY IT!!!!

:toast:

But of course, in their fundy mindset, they think they are helping these people by bringing them God. (Never mind that these folks already have him in Islam. :eyes: )

Seriously I'm seeing is a bunch of 'open minded' (pffft) people siding with thug clerics that threaten anyone who thinks different. But sense you all have such a great idea to how aid should be handled go do it. Set a example for secularism and show the same dedication to spread you ways by helping the poor as missionaries do.

Is it because they are Muslim?

When a Muslim cleric calls for jihad, I don't expect a letter from an attorney.

I have not seen them encourage any type of violence, but we in West automatically assume violence is encouraged by Muslim Clerics that it is tantamount to bigotry. I will not assume anything until a Cleric actually calls for their deaths. I prefer not to prejudge anyone.

would be settled with a friendly game of chess?

Look at post 8, just because you simplify the meaning of a word, doesn't mean it is used in that context.

Can you cite one cleric who called for non-violent "jihad?"

Do you really think you are getting an unfiltered breifing of every single cleric in the middle east? The media has one major rule. If it bleeds, it leads. A cleric calling for a struggle against a people through peaceful means is not going to get a lot of attention from our news outlets.

I do find it ironic that the people who complain the most on this board for the lack of understanding of their religion have no qualms about attacking another over what could amount to simple ignorance.

So I will refer you to this link:

http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=3772

I would implore you to actually research on the subject before forming an opinion on it.

But I'm saying, in the modern world, Jihad means war.

Mainstream Muslims are appalled at the use of religious terms that justify terrorism. I would prefer to avoid using it as a description of violence and then only as something that a radical has declared. Neither will I assume anything unless it is proven otherwise.

something - and then expecting others to refute it - YOU should do some research. There as plenty of them - the only ones you'll ever see in the west are those that conform to stereotypes however, much as here in Australia we tend to hear more about Falwell, Robertson and the other cooks than your average American Christian preacher - it's more newsworthy - maybe you could try visiting your local mosque if you want to see non violence and Islam in action.

But for some more well known examples try researching: Abdul Ghaffar Khan, RAWA (who while advocate a secular state are most definitely Muslims, Imam Muhammad Shirazi, Hasan al-Banna, the All Party Hurriyat Conference in Kashmir, Ali Sistani in Iraq at the present time, Faisal Abdul Rauf…..ask any or read any of their works/speeches and you hear the words jihad used in their non violent context. I could go on with many many more names but I doubt you’ll look up any of them.

Would you mind if I ask in what form/context that you “studied Islam” as you seem to have a limited knowledge of it’s practices and history. The very fact that you can insist that “today Jihad means violence” demonstrates a limited understanding.

The town has a history of violence involving aid workers. In February 2002, Verena Karrer, a 70-year-old Swiss humanitarian worker, was shot dead by unidentified gunmen. The United Nations evacuated two U.N. security officers from Merca in September 2000 after they were attacked by armed Islamic fundamentalists.

Violence has already occured. That my friend is context.

I did not see that in the article, violence occurs everywhere, due to various reasons. Does the Pope encourage Abortion Clinic Bombers or Assasins? He has declared that having an abortion is tantamount to murder, so is he encouraging or supporting these extremists?

It merely means to defend the faith against another. If that means taking political action to get the missionaries to leave then that suffices.

Again, can you name one example of a non-violent Jihad in the past three decades?

Again, why do you agree with those who are against free exercise of religion?

Aren't we Democrats? Don't we believe in Freedom for everyone?

I would be of the opinion that any Christian who feels they have to save anyone would do it in aggressive manner, and violently at that. For isn't that how they "Spread the Word" for the past 2000 years?

Says here in the Bible that you are supposed to kill witches. Now I know a few witches and I don't think they would be to thrilled about being killed because someone else was expressing their freedom of religion.

There is freedom and there is responsibility. We have a responsibility to build a society that is as free as possible but protects us from the excesses of others.

There are differing layers of cultural beliefs on how to deal with certain things. In our society we have had a couple hundred years to get used to the idea of someone living next door to us who professes beliefs that someone a few centuries earlier may have been killed for. Some people believe things that others believe to be completely evil. But our laws say they cannot strike down that which they believe to be evil because we all have the right to believe as we choose to.

Not all cultures share our position. They believe when you find evil you destroy it. It doesn't matter if the evil protests or not, you kill it. Differing beliefs are evil in their eyes. They come from Satan. Can't get much more evil than that. Would you suggest to these people that they just have to let Satan's messengers wander around their towns spreading their evil words? I think you are going to find that just slapping the word freedom on a situation and expecting everyone to be happy is a bit more complex than you think.

I'm going to write Kerry and ask that be added to the Platform.

"We believe that some people are really freaking backwards. Instead of trying to bring this people into modernity, we fully accept their backwards, violent ways. We just don't understand their culture. It's like how we treat The Sudan. Sure, we think slavery is bad, but to them it is okay. And who are we to judge. C'est la vie."

I mean we don't understand them so...you know...they shouldn't be judged for having slaves and...you know....standing for everything we stand against.

Oppression needs to be opposed everywhere, however, if you decide to attack the culture itself or the religion, you accomplish nothing.

It truly amazes me how the word freedom gets bandied around like its some cure-all. Its as if we free a people and they should suddenly fall down in gratitude before us. It really makes me wonder if people really know what freedom is.

Freedom is uncertainty. Freedom is responsibility for one's own fate. Freedom is chaos. Freedom is the destruction of authority. Freedom is the removal of guidance.

Keep in mind that we came by our freedom by way of our own personal struggle. Our country started out because we had become finally enraged enough at our leige to demand our freedom from him. If we had stormed England and freed them from King George they would not have been as glad as we.

Freedom handed to a people is not as readily accepted as that won by a people struggling to be free. Some cutlures are still at a place in time where they still look to their leaders as something more than themself. Some are still caught within these things that we take to be nonsense.

Just as my telling you there is no god does not change your beliefs, telling a people they are free does not change their view of how the world should be. This doesn't mean you give up. It just means you have to realize the nature of the problem and approach it with that understanding.

Besides that's the Republican Party Platform, and one not worth stealing, as if they had any good ideas to begin with. :) Look, I take offense at the snobbish attitude you have towards people who are not of your "Superior" culture. However, oppression should NOT be encouraged, if a solution is to be sought, it must be done by encouraging those elements native in thier culture that is compatible with ours. We are not without faults, and neither are they, but patronizing them isn't going to solve a thing.

I said it was more complex than you imagine. Not that we leave them to stew in their own juices. I don't know if you are getting worked up because of the emotional impact this subject has on you or what. But this issue is a complex one that has been around for millenia. You don't fix it with bravado and gum.

Freedom is an overused banner that falsely conveys what we bring. Some refer to becoming an adult as being freed. But it means taking on new responsibilities. It means taking charge of one's own path. In our society it means learning what you have to restrict yourself on and what is permissible. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

You tell me. Freedom would seem to imply that now that we have "Freed" them from Saddam we should just pull out and let them freely sort their own lives out. Do you think that is a good thing? It certainly is the freedom loving thing to do.

Or do you suppose there is a responsibility here. Do you think their cultural and societal background has left them with a rich history of dealing with cutlural diversity and acceptance of differing beliefs?

You do not pat a person on the head and proclaim them free. You have just handed them a world of hurt and they do not have the means or experience to make sense of it.

that could be a book.

If you don't have the resources to actually become a "missionary" yourself.

Good group with no dogma to grind.

and I resent the notion you seem to have picked up that secularist or atheists don't do this.

I SEEN with my own eyes people threatened for not taking Jesus as their saviour - their are thugs of many stripes

Christian girl during the cold war against the evil nasty commies, which resulted in our school having "Bomb Drills" (go out in the hall and kneel down by the lockers) .. It was taught and widely believed that Christians would be the ones on the wrong end of a gun someday. I was led to believe that I might have to give up my life for my faith. (How is that so different than what some Muslim countries are teaching their children today?)

Well, I'm not a little Christian girl any more. But I MAY still be on the WRONG end of the GUN! sheesh ..

It is not all missionaries that behave this way. Some that are even supposed to (according to their sect) give up and simply provide what aid they can.

In a face to face confronation between beliefs people can sense when their beliefs will not find fertile soil. The need the people have still persists and good people will continue to provide what assistance they can.

There are of course zealots that have chilled their hearts to other people's beliefs. They have done so out of the belief that theirs is the right belief. They do what they belief is right. They unfortunately bring with them conflict and centuries old war.

Who has the right to dictate what aid workers should and should not do? They are the ones putting themselves on the line.

A. It creates more problems in the long run. There is a long-standing history of friction between Muslims and Christians. Why exacerbate this by having th incoming foreign aid workers put down the local religion? (Yes, I know that many mission groups have ground rules so as to keep from stirring this stuff up, but there is always someone who will break ranks and get the evangelizing going.)

B. Depending upon how it is handled, it can be tantamount to spiritual abuse. "If you want this food and medicine, you have to have the Savior too." That's just not right.

Some do, some don't.

Look, the connection between people is a universal constant. Its part of being a social creature. Religions are social structures in which many people find themself. They operate as an extended tribe or family for many. The concern they have for others can be very real. When they organize a group to go help others it is called Missionary work.

Some religious sects believe that they need to bring the word of god to other cultures. These people inadvertantly continue cultural warfare that has been going on for centuries.

Many Missionaries though do not believe their mandate is to evangelyze. They are there to do good. If asked about their beliefs they may respond. But their primary goal is to help those who are suffering. They are human. Like you and me. They feel others pain and wish to help them. Do not discredit their good will because some simply do not understand the nature of the harm they do.

Check out how they operated in Guatemala.

They were revolutionaries/drug dealers.

And once again, it's impossible to discuss Christians without mentioning Pat Robertson. Because he's our leader, you know.