A peace from a process modeled on that of the Peace of Westphalia....

as a solution to the middle east regional problems. This was a suggestion/question that came from an audience member of a conference on US-Syrian relations sponsored by the Institute of Peace. It was promptly shot down by the Near East Institute's policy advisor because "no one in the region has sought it." What's wrong with us or the world community suggesting it more than once and creating a climate in which such a peace conference could occur? This approach was instrumental in creating stability in the Western world. This audience member pointed out that we've become bogged down in the Kissinger model of diplomacy of jumping from country to country to plug the holes in the dike as they appear. It is not productive. Why not take a broader approach like this instead of meddling and tinkering in the internal affairs of each nation? I firmly believe that other nations will work with us with goodwill when we demonstrate goodwill and respect toward them.

For reference and information about the Peace of Westphalia, I include this quick link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

the most important part of the peace treaty, I think, was the fact that each principality could determine the state religion, BUT that those practicing another denomination were allowed to do so publically at certain times and privately all the time. Using this on a regional basis in Iraq may help things-but only if the different Iraqi sects agree with the idea.

to Middle East regional peace issues as a whole. The thirty years war that Westphalia ended was caused by the rise of Protestantism in the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. The root cause of violence in the Middle East is not sectarian or religious differences. The root cause is Western hubris. The British and French divided the former Ottoman Empire along lines that were to their national interests using western principles. And they installed greedy strongmen who would adapt western models of economics and governance in exchange for wealth and security. In a way, referencing the Peace of Westphalia as the basis of a solution is just another case of western arrogance, believing that the peace solution for an Islamic region must be found in western tradition.

The solution for the many problems in the Middle East can and must be found in Islamic principles and traditions. The Quranic designation of Jews and Christians as 'People of the Book' to be protected and the Ottoman millet system could well form the basis for resolution of the I/P issue. The extreme poverty and political repression that results in extremism and terrorism could be greatly reduced under an Islamic economic system,which in a western perspective would be deemed socialist, and the principles of shura (consultation) and ijima (consensus).

WHAT are you smoking?

You're kidding, right? The Sunni and Shia loved each other before the evil white man came? The Ottoman Empire was assembled peacefully, with no blood shed?

"People of the Book" to be protected? Is that like "segregation" and "apartheid"? Yes, I believe that it is. Why should, say the Jews of Israel who are currently independent and with their own ancient religion, submit themselves to the will of the followers of Allah, who hate their guts?

The Middle East has historically been one of the most violent regions on Earth. "Empire" was inventedthere. Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Mohammed's conquests, the Ottomans, the Mamluks.

Back in the cold War, people used to talk about peace, the peace of the grave. Better Red than Dead, you know. Islam means "submission", and that's all right, if that's what you want. But it's not for everybody.

I'd put some time into a thoughtful reply.

an opinion "-phobic", and you can safely disregard it.

I suggest that you look at the facts, which are freely available. Most Muslims are not terrorists; most Muslims are peaceful. But the very small percentage that are not number in the millions. And they are willing to cut your head off whether you believe it or not.

I don't pretend to know what the answer actually is, but I can state with certainty that the cowardly and foolish sticking of one's head in the sand and ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

as I saw them. I'll break both of your replies down:

You're kidding, right? The Sunni and Shia loved each other before the evil white man came? The Ottoman Empire was assembled peacefully, with no blood shed?
I never said Sunni and Shia loved each other before the "evil white man' came". They didn't love each other,but their differences are not and rarely were the primary causes of conflict in the Middle East.It's currently the case in Iraq because of the asshole in the Whitehouse. And again, I didn't say the Ottoman empire was assembled peacefully. Can you name an empire that was assembled with no bloodshed?

"People of the Book" to be protected? Is that like "segregation" and "apartheid"? Yes, I believe that it is.
I don't see how you get apartheid and segregation out of "protected 'People of the Book'". If you're talking about the millet system,it allowed minority communities to follow their own religions, customs, and laws and courts in most matters while still being part of the larger regional community. In comparison it was far more just than the treatment of minorities in Europe at that time and to modern western ideas of segregation and apartheid. It could form a basis for dialouge within the Islamic world that could lead to an acceptance of the State of Israels right to exist.

Why should, say the Jews of Israel who are currently independent and with their own ancient religion, submit themselves to the will of the followers of Allah, who hate their guts?
They should not.They should remain independent as part of a peaceful regional community. You seem to be misunderstanding what my premise is here.I'm certainly not suggesting Israel should become a millet and Jews treated as dhimmi. But the facts on the ground are that Israel is a tiny piece of land in a huge Arab/Muslim region, and most of those Muslims don't accept them being there.Can we agree on that? Doesn't it make sense then that a basis for acceptance of a free and independent Israel based in Islamic principles and regional tradition has a better chance of holding in the region than a western euro-centric one does?

The reasons that "the followers of Allah hate their guts" is because as Arabs they were back stabbed with the Sykes-Picot Treaty and the Balfour Declaration among others. Arabs were pushed out of or fled their homes in Palestine to be replaced by european immigrants with the support of the western powers. That they were Jewish only added fuel to the fire that they were non-Arab.Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism were the primary arguments used against Israel until relatively recently. Comparatively, while there has been anti-semitism in various parts and times in the Muslim world,there has been more and worse in European history.

The Middle East has historically been one of the most violent regions on Earth.
And the other most violent regions are where; Europe, the Americas? You seem to be implying that Middle Eastern peoples are inherently violent, which would actually be going beyond Islamophobia.Have you considered that it was the trade hub between Europe,China Persia and India? Real estate like that tends to get fought over.

"Empire" was inventedthere.
That would make sense since it was one of the 'cradles of civilization'. Of the empires you listed, only the Sumerians by 300-500 years preceded the Xia in China. And you forgot Egypt.

Back in the cold War, people used to talk about peace, the peace of the grave. Better Red than Dead, you know. Islam means "submission", and that's all right, if that's what you want. But it's not for everybody.
Are you suggesting that Islam represents a monolithic threat to our way of life the way that communism was supposed to be,and you don't think that's Islamophobic? Have you ever spoken to any Muslims about what 'submission' means from a spiritual perspective? There are some on DU here you could speak to,as well as lots of other places on these internets.I'm not Muslim, but I'd describe it as a monotheistc wu-wei.


I suggest that you look at the facts, which are freely available. Most Muslims are not terrorists; most Muslims are peaceful. But the very small percentage that are not number in the millions. And they are willing to cut your head off whether you believe it or not.
No offense intended,but that sound like something straight off of Daniel Pipes, is that one of the sources you use?. Trust me, I've looked at the facts.

I don't pretend to know what the answer actually is, but I can state with certainty that the cowardly and foolish sticking of one's head in the sand and ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
I agree with not sticking ones head in the sand and ignoring a problem, nor do I claim to have answers, only ideas.But not understanding the problem, and approaching it's solution from the wrong angle can be equally disastrous. Just look at how successful the "War on Terra" has been.

that two people can look at the same set of facts and come to diametrically opposite conclusions about them.

I have time, right now to address just one of your comments, perhaps I will be able to address the rest of them later.

But the facts on the ground are that Israel is a tiny piece of land in a huge Arab/Muslim region, and most of those Muslims don't accept them being there.Can we agree on that?

Yes, we can agree on that. What we can't seem to agree on is why the Muslims' sensitivities about it should constrain the rest of us. As long as they object peacefully, I have no objection, but there is something about the human sacrifice of their children that sticks in my craw. What other culture on earth produces such god-awful people as the suicide bombers and their recruiters.

Doesn't it make sense then that a basis for acceptance of a free and independent Israel based in Islamic principles and regional tradition has a better chance of holding in the region than a western euro-centric one does?

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Israel is a Jewish state, and what's wrong with that? Are not the other states in the Middle-East Islamic ones? Are there any Christian, or even secular states there? I didn't think so. A free and independent Israel based on Islamic principles would not be Israel, but just another Mid-East thugocracy. Not for me, thank you so very much, and not for the Israelis either, I would suppose.

It's not a matter of Muslim sensitivities constraining the rest of us. Nothing to do with reactions to cartoons, popes or any issues relative to western Muslims, those are separate issues. It's about finding a way to bring peace to a mostly Arab and almost entirely Muslim region of the world that was not allowed to exercise it's promised self-determination after WWI. Instead, western powers set political boundaries for their own self interests and installed leaders who would acquiesce to western interests and establish western based economic systems.

I think I've made it clear already that I feel Israel should remain a fully independent Jewish state and an equal participant with its Muslim neighbors in regional issues. If the basis for a peace cannot be justified in Islamic terms, it won't be accepted by most of the people of the Middle East, regardless of their governments approval. And no, there are no Islamic countries in the Arab Middle East regardless of the lip service most of the leaders give to Islam. There's a difference between Islamic and Muslim majority.

Your objections to my thoughts seem to be based in the premise that nothing good can come out of Islamic or Middle Eastern thought and Arabs are inherently violent people. That's just so far from being fact based, it's beyond my scope to convince you otherwise on a forum. If you haven't, I'd suggest you might read 'Islam the Straight Path' by John Esposito and 'A Concise History of the Middle East' by Arthur Goldschmidt Jr.

just plain misstating the facts. And no, there are no Islamic countries in the Arab Middle East regardless of the lip service most of the leaders give to Islam. There's a difference between Islamic and Muslim majority.

Are Christians and Jews allowed in Mecca, for example? Why not? Who enforces this prohibition. Are there Christian churches going up in Saudi Arabia? Why not? Is it because the law prohibits it, or are they just sensitive to the feelings of the Muslim majority? And I wouldn't want to be a Baha'i over there.

Further, your last statement shows that you have no judgment about what is being said. Nowhere did I state, or imply, or even think, that Arabs are inherently more violent than other peoples. Nowhere did I state, etc, that nothing good can come out of Islamic or Middle Eastern thought. You are projecting your own way of thinking, perhaps even you own prejudices, onto me.

What I will state, upfront, is that the Middle East should learn to let Israel live on its own terms. What other people in the world are still grievancing (I made that word up) about the unfairness of WW1?

Let me ask you this. Are we to believe that Arabs and Iranians are bigger liars than other peoples? If not, why shouldn't we take them at their word that they want to destroy us and Israel? I respect them enough to take them seriously; why won't you?

As for your suggestions as to my reading material, I thank you. I'll check them out. However, do not assume that I do not know a little something about the Middle East's history. I do. Recall, if you will, my first statement in my previous post.

needs to have a basis in Islamic thought and culture?

can only return a general, non-specific, and hence useless answer to a general, non-specific question.

In you opinion, what peace solution would have a basis in Islamic thought and culture? Keep in mind that the Israelis must be satisfied with it too. Which means no right of return

you have hit upon a real sore spot in the entire situation--the right of return. I think you have to look at the psychological makeup of the peoples involved--for two millenia, at the Seder, they drink a toast, saying "Next year in Jerusalem". The right of Jews to return to Israel is enshrined within their religious practices, and the Palestinians know this. I think this is the reason they are insisting upon it.

And yet Israel cannot afford to let this happen, because of a real fear of once again being in the minority. Needless to say, they know and understand oppression, from pogroms to the Holocost. This is the reason they feel they cannot afford to make their government a true democracy-the birth rates of Palestinians is greater than that of Israeli Jews. Couple with that the immediate influx of displaced Palestinians and their descendants, and that minority status becomes instantanious.

One more factor: the nearby countries have not done everything they could to bring displaced Palestinians into their nation; Lebanon has actually practiced discrimination against them so that they cannot get good jobs, schooling, etc. The solution to part of the problem might well be for Israel to work with its neighbors, teaching them how to assimilate Palestinians and have them become a benefit to the nation; Israel, by bringing in Jews from around the world, knows how to do that. If Israel and its Western allies would have supported this sort of move decades ago, I think a great deal of the problem we now see would have been solved. I fear that now it may be too late.

The solution to part of the problem might well be for Israel to work with its neighbors, teaching them how to assimilate Palestinians and have them become a benefit to the nation; Israel, by bringing in Jews from around the world, knows how to do that. If Israel and its Western allies would have supported this sort of move decades ago, I think a great deal of the problem we now see would have been solved. I fear that now it may be too late, implies that the Palestinians were willing to settle the question in such a manner. They weren't.

I'm hoping here that we can keep this off getting booted to the I/P forum, so I will say no more.

I asked "So what is your objection to my premise that a peace solution needs to have a basis in Islamic thought and culture?". I've explained in some detail why I feel it does and I'm assuming you don't agree with my opinion, or we wouldn't be continuing this discussion. I'll try to break it down a bit more if you'd like.
- Do you believe the core values of Islam preclude a Peace fair to Israel?
- Do you think a Peace that incorporates Islamic and regional tradition would be more easily embraced by the masses of Muslims than one based in strictly politics?

Those seem straight forward to me, and if you could answer those I think it would help us maintain a productive dialog.

I've read the Qur'an. Some passages


Excerpt K 9:029
Set 38, Count 101 Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


Excerpt K 24:055
Set 58, Count 123 Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth ...


Excerpt K 47:035
Set 71, Count 138 Rodwell: Be not fainthearted then; and invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand: for God is with you, and will not defraud you of the recompense of your works...


Excerpt K 5:033
Set 21, Count 54 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned


Excerpt K 8:039-048
Set 30, Count 66-75 <8.39> Shakir: ...fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah... <8.40> Yusuf Ali: If they refuse , be sure that God is your Protector...<8.41> Shakir: ...whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle...the day on which the two parties met ...<8.42>...Allah might bring about a matter which was to be done, that he who would perish might perish by clear proof ...<8.43>...Allah showed them to you in your dream as few ; and if He had shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-hearted ...<8.44>...when you met, as few in your eyes and He made you to appear little in their eyes, in order that Allah might bring about a matter which was to be done ...<8.45>...when you meet a party , then be firm...<8.46>...obey Allah and His Apostle and do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart...<8.47>...be not like those who came forth from their homes ...<8.48>...when the two parties came in sight of each other he turned upon his heels

Excerpt K 9:005
Set 33, Count 91 ...slay the idolaters wherever you find them...take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...

Excerpt K 9:012-014
Set 34, Count 92-94 <9.12> ...fight the leaders of unbelief...<9.13> What! will you not fight a people...<9.14> Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.


Excerpt K 9:038-039
Set 40, Count 103+104 <9.38> ...Go forth in Allah's way ... <9.39> If you do not go forth , He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you ...

Excerpt K 22:058
Set 55, Count 120 Sher Ali: ...those who leave their homes for the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die, Allah will, surely, provide for them a goodly provision...

Excerpt K 47:004
Set 69, Count 136 ...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates...(as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah...


Now, these passages are from their holy book. I would assume that it has some effect on the way that they think, if they believe their own religion. However, there are other core values in Islam that tend toward peace. It would all depend on the specific sect of Islam, and the individual believer, or so I would suppose. Still, to answer your question, I do not believe that the core values currently ascendant in political Islam in the Mid-East lend themselves toward a peace, other than that of the grave, for Israel.

I am sure that a peace based on Muslim and regional traditions would be acceptable to the Muslims. But would they be acceptable to the Israelis? And why should they be the ones to give in, if a compromise cannot be reached?

And that is the question that I have for you. What is it that privileges the Arab position more highly than that of the Israelis? I'd really like to know, and I'd like to hear an answer based on something other than some long ago injustice that they feel? Shit happens to everybody, not just the Palestinians.

in any direct fashion. As an indirect answer, I'd have to take it as a 'no', and it seems to reinforce my impression that you see Islam as a fundamentally 'bad' religion. The verses you've quoted, which are widely available as ready-made lists on Islamophobic sites, are in reference to specific historical events in the time of the Prophet. That needs to be taken into account in reading them. Literally taken, they applied only to those specific circumstances. The Quran has to be read in context, it's a very layered book. A part of the Islamic sciences involves understanding rules of abrogation in sorting out conflicting Quranic passages and Hadeeth.Unfortunately, just like the Christian and Judaic books, it has been misused by many clerics to promote ideas that are neither Christian or Islamic.

So would you be so kind as to give direct answers to my questions above, so i don't have to make assumptions as to what your answers are?

My grandfather, a good Methodist, once told me to beware of any minister who took passages from the Bible out of context. He rightly told me that when someone does that, they can make the Bible "say" anything they want it to say-his example: "And Judas went out to a tree and hung himself" "Go thou and do likewise".

As for imams misusing Islam-as was mentioned in the latest publication of my order, since there is no religious hierarchy in Islam, ANYONE can issue a fatwa-so look at who is issuing them, why they are issuing them, and if the fatwa in question really has to do with leading a better life according to the teachings of Islam.

And what you mentioned about the nature of fatwahs is really important, a cleric issuing a fatwah has no more authority in Islam than a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell opinion has in Christianity.

If Rev. Yokel Lokel down in Zinc says that, say, all gays are evil and should be killed, no one in this country would think for an instant that all Christianity or even the Christians in Boone County Arkansas agreed with him and would follow up on his suggestion.

But if Imam Iam Anidiot issues a fatwa saying that, say, all Americans should be killed, you will see a goodly number of Americans who think that this bozo has billions of followers who agree with him because-well--he's in some sort of position of power. Nothing could be further from the truth. But as so many Americans know so little about Islam, people with an anti-Islamic agenda can get away with saying such things.

It is a holy book that was written down soon after it was recited (by that I mean within about 100 years) and the Arabic hasn't been changed. But that doesn't mean that different translations of the Qur'an can't have different spins. They have and they do. At one Sufi retreat, a fellow read the same passage out of three different translations-and each one said something very different from the other-don't recall the specific passage-but it dealt with people of the Book. The translation favored by Sufis said all who are of the Book are to be treated equally; the Wahhabist version said only Muslims were ok, the Christians were led astray and the Jews brought down God's wrath; the other was somewhere in between (hey this was like 15 years ago, so forgive my faulty memory).

If, for contrast, you would like me to pull out my translation of the Qur'an (yes, the one the Sufis use), I could find some of the citations the other chap had and copy the other version for contrast. Let me know.

As for a translation of the Qur'an,sorry it's the best I can do. I don't speak or read Arabic. However, as I said before, Sufis are not the problem. I don't exactly see why you are trying to conflate the Sufis with the terrorist murderers and say, look how peacful Sufis are. That doesn't change one fact about the murdering scum.

but a lot of people in this country are. My boss is unaware of my faith, but I have heard him say if any Muslim ever worked for him, he'd fire them. My husband's life has been threatened. I have Muslim friends whose places of business have been vandalized and terrible words spray painted across the walls. And there have been mosques that have been threatened and vandalized as well. There is an active element here in the USA that is trying to paint ALL Muslims as bad. They are making sure that the general public doesn't know about stands for peace that are being taken by progressive Muslims.

When the general public differentiates between the murdering scum and peaceful Muslims, I will be very happy.

I'm going to link to your quotations with my translations, so that I get the verse and suras correct. It will take a while, because there will be a lot of typing involved, so please be patient.

or simply notice that I quoted from the Muslim holy book. I did give a direct answer. But I will repeat myself. I don't think that in its current state political Islam in the Mid-East is capable of achieving any peace but that of the grave with Israel.

There was another question. I answered it too. Reread my previous post, please.

and have given you the translations from my Qur'an. BTW, again I will mention that the quotations you gave for some of the verses left out key words, thereby changing the meaning and masking the context in which the verses were written.

If you compare my translation to the one put out by the Wahhabists, I have not doubt you will find a large difference. But kindly quote the entire verse so that it can be compared in a complete fashion.

You say " to answer your question, I do not believe that the core values currently ascendant in political Islam in the Mid-East lend themselves toward a peace, other than that of the grave, for Israel."

Destroying Israel is not a core value of Islam,but a part of the 'political' side of political Islam imported from secular based Arab nationalism. Argument from the 'Islamic' side of it offers the best hope of rejecting that unrealistic and un Islamic idea as part of the political Islam platform. There is no question much debate needs to take place within the Muslim umma (community) to reach that acceptance.

Political Islam is not the scary monster it's so often made out to be. Groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not representative of political Islam. The movement began with Muslim intellectuals at what's now American University in Beirut and European universities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Their intent was to temper necessary modernizations with Islamic principles to avoid the excesses of materialism and capitalism,and advance the social justice that is implicit in the Quran.

Going beyond the issue of peace for Israel,outside of western intervention what are the root causes of violence and problems in the Middle East? Ignorance, economic, political and social injustice are the major ones in my analysis. Solutions to these problems can be found within an Islamic framework as readily as a Western one. Which do you think would resonate best with non-western Islamic people?

You might want to read this interview with Tariq Ramadan, 'A Bridge across Fear', and also his call for a moratorium (leading to an end) on hudud from an entirely Islamic perspective.The man studied Islamic sciences and law at al-Azhar University in Cairo,so he is highly qualified to do so.
http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=210&var_recherche=Bridge+across+fear
http://www.tariqramadan.com/call.php3?id_article=264&lang=en

Source: The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an Abdullah Yusuf Ali published by the Amana Corporation Brentwood MD 1993

Sura 9 Verse 29-
Fight those who believe not
In Allah nor the Last Day
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By Allah and His Messenger
Nor acknowledge the Religion
Of Truth, from among
The People of the Book.
Until they pay the Jizayah
With willing submission
And feel themselves subdued.

Notes: The Jizayah was thus partly a symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated.
Note by me (not from the book)-the Religion of Truth is that which is taught by all the prophets. Since the verse before this one is talking about Pagans, this verse can be considered a continuation of that thought.

Sura 24, verse 55
Allah has promised, to those
Among you who believe
And work righteous deeds, that He
Will, of a surety, grant them
In the land, inheritance
(Of power) as He granted it
To those before them; that
He will establish in authority
Their religion--the one
Which He has chosen for them;
And that He will change
(Their state) after the fear
In which they (lived), to one
Of security and peace:
They will worship Me (alone)
And not associate aught with Me.
If any do reject Faith
After this,they are
Rebellious and wicked.

Notes: Three things are promised here, to those who have Faith and obey God's Law: 1) that they will inherit power and authority on the land, not for any selfish purposed of theirs by way of favouritism, but in order that they may maintain God's law 2)the the Religion of Right, which God has chosen for them, will be openly established, and will suppress all wrong and oppression 3)the that righteous will live in peace and security, instead of having to suffer persecution, or leave their hearths and homes for the cause of God, or practice the rites of their Faith in secret. This vers was revealed about the time of the Battle of the Ditch...we can imagine the comfort it gave to the Muslims who wer4e besieged in Nadinah by a force ten times their numbers.

Sura 47 verse 35
Be not weary and
Faitnhearted, crying for peace
When ye should be
Uppermost: for Allah is
With you, and will never
Put you in loss
For your (good) deeds

Notes: To those who are tying to root out evil, and have authority to do so, the question is not of peace or conflict, but of whther Good or Evil is to prevail. They must remember the Good must ultimately prevail, and God's help is with those who, as far as men can, are tying to further the unversal Plan.

Sura 5 Verse 33
The punishment of those
Who wage war against Allah
And His Messenger, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land
Is: execution, or crucifixion,
Or the cutting off of hands
And feet from opposite sides,
Or exile from the land.
That is their disgrace
In this world, and
A heavy punishment is theirs
In the Hereafter.

Notes: For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances, viz. execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile. These were features of the Criminal Law then and for centuries afterwards, except that tortures such as "handing, drawing, and quatering"in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun,which was practiced in Arabi, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognized as a ground for mercy.

Sura 8 38-48 (I included verse 38 as it is the start of a section, and helps put the section in context)
C. 91- The battle of Badr brought to an issue the fight between Truth and Unbelief. It was the Day of Differentiation. Not for spoils was it won, nor by numbers, but by courage and planning, union of wills. and pooling of strength and resources--Above all by the help of Allah, whose help is ever all sufficient.

38- Say to the Unbelievers,
If (now) they desist (from Unbelief)
their past would be forgiven them;
But if they persist, the punishment
Of those before them is already
(A matter of warning for them).

39-And fight them on
Until there is no more
tumult or oppression.
And there preveials
Justice and faith in Allah
Altogether and everywhere;
But if they cease, verily Allah
Doth see all that they do

Note: If they cease from fighting and from the persecution of truth, God judges them by their actions and their motives, and would not wish that they should be harassed with further hostility. But if they refuse all terms, the righteous have nothing to fear: God will help and protect them.

40-
If they refuse, be sure
That Allah is your Protector--
The Best to protect
And the Best to help.

41
And knwo that out of
All the booty that ye
May acquire (in war)
A fifth share is assigned
To Allah--and to the Messenger,
And to near relatives,
Orphans, the needy.
And the wayfarer--
If ye do not believe in Allah
And in teh revelation
We sent down to our Servnat
On the Day of Testing
The Day of the meeting
Of the two forces.
For Allah hath power
Over all things.

Notes: The rule is that a fifth share is set apart for the Imam (the Commander) and teh rest is divided among the forces. The fifth share reserved is expressed to be for God and the Prophet, and for charitable purposes for those to whom charity is due...Testing...The Battle of Badr is called by that name...God's power is shown in the events detailed in the three verses following (v 42-44) leading to the complete victory of the Muslims over the pagan Quarah.

42
Remember ye were
On the hither side
Of the valley, and they
On the father side,
And the caravan
On lower ground than ye.
Even if ye had made
A mutual appointment
To meet, you would certainly
Have failed in the appointment
But (thus yet met).
That Allah might accomplish
A matter already enacted;
Taht those who died might
Die after a clear Sign
(Had been given) and those who lived
Might live after a Clear Sign
(Had been given). And verily
Allah is He who heareth
And knoweth (all things).

Notes:
They were all at cross purposes. The caravan was making for Makkah, but scarely thought it could get there. The Qurayash force was trying to save the caravan and then annihilate the Muslims. Teh Muslims had decided to let the caravan alone, but attakc the Quarysh army from Makkah, which they thought was going to be small, but which turned out to be big, more than three times their number. Yes, the two forces met, precisely at the spot and at the time when a decisive battle should take place and the Muslims dispose of the pretentions of the Makkans. If htey had carefully planned a mutual appointment, tehy could not have carried it out more precisely.

43
Remember in thy dream
Allah showed them to thee
As few; if He had shown
Them to thee as many,
Ye would surely have been
Discouraged, and ye would
Surely have disputed
In (your) decision; but Allah
Saved (you) for He knoweth
Well the (secrets) of (all) hearts.

44.
And remember when ye met,
He showed them, to you
As few in your eyes.
And He made you appear
As contemptable in their eyes;
That Allah might accomplish
A matter aleardy enacted.
For to Allah do all questions
Go back (for decision)

45
Oh ye who believe!
When y emmet a force,
Be firm, and call Allah
In remembrance much (and often);
That ye may prosper;

46
And obey Allah and His Messenger;
And fall into no disputes,
Lest ye lsoe heart
And your power depart;
And be patient and perserving;
For Allah is with those
Who patiently perservere.

47
And be not like those
Who started from their homes
Insolently and to be seen of men,
And to hinder (men)
FRom the path of Allah;
For Allah compasseth round about
All that they do.

48
Remember Satan made
Their (sinful) acts seem
Alluring to them, and said;
'No one among men
Can overcome you this day.
While I am near to you';
But when the two forces
Came in sight of each other,
He turned on his heels
And Said,'Lo, I am clear
Of you; lo! I see
What ye see not:
Lo! I fear Allah, fo Allah
Is strict in punishment.

Note: It is the way with the leaders of evil, when they find their cause lsot, that they wash their hands of their followers and leave them in the lurch. They see more clearly than their dupes. They are not simpltons; they know the consequences fo the wrath of Allah....

Sura 9 verse 5
But when the forbidden months
Are past, then fight and slay
The Pagans wherever ye find them,
And seize them, beleaguer them,
And lie in wait for them
In every stratagem (of war)
But if they repent,
and establish regular prayers
And practice regular charity
Then pen the way for them,
For Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful.

Notes: When war becomes inevitable, it must be prosecuted with vigour. According to the English phrase, you cannot fight with kid gloves. The fighting may take the form of slaughter, or capture, or siege, or ambush or other stratagems. But even then there is room for repentance and emandment on the part of the guilty party, and if that takes place, our duty is forgiveness and the establishment of peace.

Sura 9 11-13 ( I include the verse before, because it puts the verses you only quoted in part into proper context.)

11 But (even so) if they repent,
Establsh regular prayers
And parcitce regular charity--
They are your brothers in the Faith;
(Thus do We explain the Signs
In detail, for those who understand.

12
But if they violate their oaths
After their covenant,
And atuant you for your Faith
Fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith;
For their oaths are nothing to them;
That thus they may be restrained.

13
Will ye not fight people
Who violated their oaths,
Plotted to expel the Messenger,
And took the aggressive
By bing the first (to assault) you?
Do ye fear them? Nay,
It is Allah Whom ye should
More justly fear, if ye believe!

14
Fight them, and Allah will
Punish them by your hands,
Cover them with shame,
Help you (to victory) over them,
Heal the breasts of Believers.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting stiff from so much typing. Kindly take your time to read the verses and notes. One thing I noticed in your post is that many times, only a part of a verse is quoted, and no context for the verse is given. I hope that by quoting the entire verse, and sometimes preceding verses, plus the notes , I have given you a fuller idea of what is really being said in these verses.

When you are talking about Muslims and Arabs (and Persians), are you speaking about the governments of these countries? I will totally agree with you that many of the governments of these nations are repressive, not only of Jews but of other faiths (Bahai in Iran) and other Islamic sects (Sufis are not allowed to openly worship in Saudi Arabia, for example, and have their shrines and teaching centers in Iran destroyed, followers who were peacefully protesting arrested and tortured). I think that perhaps what needs to be done at this point in the debate is to look at these repressive governments and how they came to power.

Lebanon-The only government that is mixed religiously, as there are Druze (an Islamic sect), Sunnis, and Christians there, and I believe the latest form of government requires proportional representation of these groups. But how many times has the Lebanese government been overthrown because of outside influences rather than changed from within by voting? I think this meddling of Western countries in this state is one reason why extremists like Hamas have been able to gain a foothold; the US supplies soldiers but not aid to the people; Hamas gives social services and then later demands a blood money payment--not good, but couldn't it be changed if aid from, say, the US went for medical care and food instead of guns?

Saudi Arabia-Propped up and backed up by the US for the oil. No thought was ever given about aid to help find useful occupations for the many wealthy but idle young men here, who have become prey to religious extremism, which the royal family took to be a safety valve for venting frustration with the government but now threatens that government. (BTW, in a hadeeth, the Prophet said that the greatest threat to Islam would come from within--and noted it would come from the region where Wahhabism started.)

Iran-the democratically elected government of Iran was deposed by the CIA, and the shah installed. The shah persecuted Muslims, and the overreaction brought what we have today. Kindly note, however, that their president does NOT have the power we think a president should have. It is in the hands of the Supreme Ayatollah--you may be surprised to find out that this gentleman has said no nukes and has actually tried to start overtures to Israel-very small steps, but they are there.

of the governments. But let us be honest. Many of the people, not all but many, are violent and have hatred in their heart for the USA and Israel, and, dare I say it, all non-Muslims. This is not to deny that there are many, many more peaceful Muslims, but then these fine and decent people are not the problem, are they?

US aid could probably be used in more effective ways than it is, but what are those ways? Who decides? How do they decide? These are questions for our elected policy makers to settle. However, I see no need to provide aid to wealthy but idle young men. If they are wealthy, why cannot they help themselves. Further, is it the responsibility of the USA to install a good government in these countries? Based on the feelings about Iraq, I would say no. I would say no in any event. Shouldn't it be the problem of the governed to change their government when it does not meet their needs. Isn't that what we are trying to do with the Bush administration?

Am I saying all Muslims are evil? NO! Of course not. Am I saying that there are big problems in the Middle-East, not all of which are caused by outsiders? Yes, I am.

right now in the US, there is propaganda being spread that basically says that all Muslims are terrorists, and, at the very least, should be rounded up and sent to camps. I have heard this with my own ears, and my husband's life has been threatened. The work for peace that my Sufi brothers and sisters have been literally doing for decades is rarely, if ever, reported, and never in the national news. For example, had you heard of Murshid Saadi's peace work in Jerusalem, or Murshid S.A.M.'s plan for peace in the Mideast? Or the Sufi shaykhs living in Palestine who have invited Jews to meals and to worship together, only to have their lives threatened by Arafat? Or the Turkish shaykh who has denounced all violence and who has called for all Muslims to go back to the meaning and heart of the teachings in the Qur'an?

As far as the ME countries' governments go, we do need to stop supporting the corrupt ones and we need to, by publicity at least, laud those who are trying to build bridges and make peace.

the Sufis. A peaceful group according to my reading.

But are they the ones doing the bombing? No? Then they are not part of the problem. But what have they done to restrain, shame, or neutralize the non-Sufis, and non-decent, Muslims who are the problem. How are they co-operating in the fight against murder? I am not being snide, I really don't know and would appreciate any information that you have on this question.

On edit: The Sufis, like the terrorists, are a small subset of the general Muslim populatio. As far as I know, there is no congruency between the two subsets. So, I sort of fail to see the relevance of the peacful Sufis to the murdering terrorists.

that, in this country for example, Sufis are being put into the same catagories as the terrorists and their lives have been threatened. If you wish to find out what some of the things being done to condemn terrorism by moderate Muslims (and not just Sufis), kindly look in these places:

the Muslim/Islam board here at DU

www.muslimwakeup.com a site for progressive Muslims-Sufis and otherwise

http://www.abwoon.com/neil.html Read down in Murshid's biography and you will find out about his Middle Eastern peace initiatives.

http://www.dancesofuniversalpeace.org/pubs/PW_Pubs_Catalogue.pdf.
You have to go to page 8 of this catalog to read about Murshid S.A.M., but I'll summarize what it says about two of his books:

The Book of Peace--...written in the 1930s, previews many of his later projects on global peacemaking and the Dances of Universal Peace, while integrating radical insights about the relative value of capitalism and socialism in human evolution toward international brotherhood/sisterhood.

Jerusalem Trilogy: Song of the Prophets--...in the voices of the three major religions of the Middle East, we are reminded of the essential wisdom that brings Peace....

Meetings With Remarkable Human Beings--...containing autobiographical writings of Samuel L. Lewis--peacemaker, scientist, world citizen, teacher, and creator of the Dances of Universal Peace....

As I said in an earlier post, the concept of terrorism (ie bombing civilian targets) started with a certain Zionist faction desiring Israeli independence. The only reason I mention this once again is that, unfortunately, those who desire the destruction of Israel are looking to their success and expanding upon the concept in a very ugly and disheartening way.

As I also said, moderating voices in the region are not being supported. Sufis have been saying, literally for decades, that the way to peace in the Middle East is by tolerance and mutual respect. Murshid Sufi Ahmed Murad Chisti, back in the 1950s, proposed that one way to bring peace to the area was to have Jerusalem be a "free city" which neither side could claim as a capital (note the date: this is before Jews had control of the city-their capital at the time was Tel Aviv), open to all for worship and administered by an international body. This Murshid, btw, was born Jewish and continued to honor and practice Jewish mysticism as well as mystical Islam and Zen Buddhism. Different faiths, at the root of things, are one faith. That is the Sufi message, one that Sufis both in the US and in Israel/Palestine have been delivering ever since the onset of problems there.

that terrorism originated with any Jewish faction, although certainly it was practiced by them at one time. But it is a technique that has been around, in one form or another, for millenia.

However, what concerns us here is not who did it 1000, 100, or 50 years ago, but who is doing it this very moment.

to try and frame the debate solely on what is going on now is neglecting this very important fact.

They can hold a grudge. Highly admirable, I'm sure.

All peoples have long memories. The Jews among them.

or look at the matter in a totally different way. His Holiness the Dalai Lama springs immediately to mind. What I am saying is that the cultures of teh Middle East have ingrained in them the idea of holding grudges, which is not the same as every culture everywhere.

the West, of which Israel is a part, can forgive, but also will defend itself.

People should rise above their culture if it's going to get them killed. Or suffer the consequences. Perhaps you are saying that the Mid-Eastern cultures should grow up?

I'm saying I believe there has to be a transmutation in the cultures there so that they can see and understand that holding grudges is not productive.

Israel is a part of? It consists mostly of european immigrants and was established using western principles, but it is not a part of the west. You can't change geographical reality.

Need to be careful we don't send this to the dungeon........

There were Jews living in the area now called Israel before the influx of European Jews after WWII. Some came in the 1880s, others had lived there for years before. They were not bombed, terrorized, etc, etc. They had also purchased their land and were accepted as rightful landowners.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the first group to use terror blew up a British hotel-and the perpetrators were those who wished to have an independent Jewish state.

What happened after WWII was that Jewish refugees came to Palestine, at first without the blessing of the Brits, and then when world opinion was in their sympathy, with British permission. A certain amount of land was purchased-from absentee landlords. The tenants of the land were kicked off, which led to hard feelings-the custom there, as I understand it, was to buy and sell land but leave the tenants on it. So the idea of land ownership in the European Jewish eyes and the native Palestinian eyes was very, very different. I do not know if, by 1948, some lands owned directly by Palestinians was simply seized by Israel or not, though land was later taken as a spoil of war.

That the Palestinians miscalculated the strength of Israel and overestimated the support from nearby Arab countries is a given; they misplayed their hand in 1948, and again in 1966 and 1972. But Israel made mistakes, too, such as occupying lands and building a wall, which have not helped the situation but have instead aggravated it.

I take objection to this statement

But Israel made mistakes, too, such as occupying lands and building a wall, which have not helped the situation but have instead aggravated

So, what your are saying is that Israel has no right to take measures to defend itself and its citizens, even completely non-violent and passive ones like building a wall?

What do you suggest that they do?

Support those people in Israel who have been trying for years to build bridges, instead of, for example, making it harder for Israeli/Palestinian businesses to run and work. As for the wall being completely non-violent--I believe that there have been incidents of violence involving the construction of the wall and of the movements of Palestinians who live in towns encircled by the wall.

is highly effective in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from penetrating civilian areas of Israel and killing hundreds. And while some violnce may have been involved in constructing the wall, I fail to see how a wall just sitting there keep murderers out is violent? Perhaps you will explain?

I am all for those working for peace. But again, they aren't really the problem, are they? What do you do with the ones that want to kill you and have the means to make it happen?

and support viable plans they may have for making small steps towards peace.

in that the word "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. Same God as the God of Abraham and of Jesus. "Islam" means submission to God, which means following the will of the Divine, which is also taught, I believe, in Judaism and Christianity.

As for all Muslims hating all Jews--interesting, as there have been peace missions to the US started by Muslims (Murshid Saadi)where Jews played an active role, and there have been joint Jewish-Muslim businesses that have been tried in Israel/Palestine. I will say that I have read that Sufi shaykhs in the area have had their lives threatened by the Palestinian Authority, and have had to scrap their peace mission; there are factions in both the Palestinian and Israeli governments that do not want such peace overtures and business ventures to proceed and to succeed. But please know that there are individuals and groups on both sides that want to get along.

You are correct about the Middle East being one of the most violent regions on Earth, though; it is the place where the concept of people, nation, and empire began.

why you say that I think all Muslims do anything, let alone hate all Jews. Show me where I said that.

Why do you think it's okay to make that sort of broad and negative generalisation about Muslims? You've interviewed each and every one of them or something? That sort of comment is just as silly as someone coming along and saying 'Many Americans, not all but many, are violent and have hatred in their heart for Muslims, and, dare I say it, all non-Christians and non-Jews.'

When I read that Muslims hate Jews, I often wonder if I should mention that I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, hate my Jewish brother in law, or that a large number of the senior teachers in the Ruhaniat Society were born Jewish (and for all I know, still observe Shabboth; I've celebrated it with Jews, as they have celebrated Zkr with me).