As per Wikipedia:

In religion, a moderate is someone who holds an intermediate position between the liberal or secularist view and the conservative, orthodox or fundamentalist view.

Religious moderates tend to take a doctrinal position that is not as strict as the orthodox or conservative religious members, but not as open as the secularist or liberal members. For example, a moderate Christian theologian might reject the conservative notion that the bible is inerrant, but might also reject the more liberal notion of universalism.

A Muslim who does anything contrary to what Quran and Sunnah requires from him has erred. There is not such thing as orthodox or fundamentalist as a Muslim does not have a say in it but must conform to the Laws of Allah.

Anything contrary to this is an act of Kufr (disbelief). While this may not make someone a Kaafir (disbeliever) it certainly displeases Allah and must therefore be rejected.

Islam promotes Shura (consultation) and there is no place for democracy in Islam. Democracy believes in the right of the majority even though that majority may be wrong. In Islam we say the majority is the Truth and the Allah is Al-Haq. So no matter how many people disagree, as long as we follow the commands of Allah we are indeed on the right path.

We must reject these attempts for this so-called moderation. At the same time we acknowledge fanaticism as being something which is not part of Islam and also urge our Muslim leaders to stick steadfastly to the Laws of Allah and rule accordingly.

We do also treat with contempt any view of Muslims as fundamentalists and extremists.

Moderateness, or in Arabic the "wasateya" in Islam means stricting to the teachings and rules which are revealed by Allah and applied by His Messenger (PBUH). These rules satisfy the spiritual requirements by acheiving  a strong relation between the Man and his Lord without depriving of material or biological requirements. At the same time it prohibits extravagance. About Shura (consultation), it is only permitted when discussing worldly, not religious, affairs which the Quran and the Sunna didn't discuss or prohibit. We don't need the "Moderateness" of America which means neglecting the Islamic rules and following the Western model.

Salam,

In reading the 217 page document I was appalled. However, the writers are simply making a manual for use in the government policies and how money will be spent on winning over moderate muslims. The aim is to win over Muslims by allocating money to Muslims who are secular. The jist of the paper is moderate Mulims do not have access to the media and educational facililites.  By funding the so called democratic Muslims and Muslim nations, which they identified, the State Department and other agenices can help sway public policy to benefit the US. Specific masjids, universities, and nations will be given priority, included are businesses.

It is interesting that the US, who champions separtion of church and state, wants to identify Muslims by the practice of thier beliefs. Much of the Muslim opinion was gathered in Spain and the Philliphines. Not, your average Muslim countries.

The disturbing issues are the use of the word ; cold war tatcits will be employed. The authors believe the lessons of the Cold War can be used to successfully seduce secular Muslims. In fact, last month , a secular Muslim convention was held in Miami, Florida.

Is this something to worry about. No, not really, Allah is the disposer of all affairs. This is just another way for separting Muslims from the ummah. What they forget is there is a day, that is promised, when we will meet our Creator. Everything occurs and passes with his Knowledge and Will...

we simply have to pray and know nothing can prevent His Will. Take courage and love each other ..We Muslims can not be bought..our souls belong to Allah.

 “This is just another way for separting Muslims from the ummah. What they forget is there is a day, that is promised, when we will meet our Creator. Everything occurs and passes with his Knowledge and Will...

We simply have to pray and know nothing can prevent His Will. Take courage and love each other ..We Muslims can not be bought.. our souls belong to Allah..."

 Quite a considerable part of my life  i lived in the former Soviet Union.I know these mantras you sing here about “We must reject these attempts…”, “We do also treat with contempt…” by heart,we had been singing them in the USSR since the childrengarden.

Just compare

“This is just another attempt of the imperialists to separate the Soviet people from the Only True teaching of marxcism-leninism. What they forget is that there will come the day when this teaching will shine in all its glory over the whole planet.We simply have to continue our creative labour and know that nothing can stop the triumphant tread of Communism.We,the Soviet People,can not be bought with dirty imperialist money,our hearts are pure and strong,and in them we have the bright fire of the Only True teaching given to us by Marx,Engels and Lenin”.

It´s from the Soviet Communist newspaper "Pravda".Compare it with your and your brethren hysterical screams.Sounds familiar,no?

And where is the Soviet Union now?Where is this powerful state,the people of which “all as one man with contempt treat the feeble efforts of imperialists to shake with their corrupted values the monumental building of Marxism-Leninism?”

It has disappeared,and “the monumental building of Marxism-Leninism” has fallen to pieces.

The same will happen to your islam.

The mimimom writes that “The disturbing issues are the use of the word ; cold war tatcits will be employed”. Yes,mimimom,you have very good reason for worrying.

The West has a very ample experience in dealing with autocratic regimes like the Soviet based on the worshipping of the “prophets of communism” .The same scheme will be used against islamic autocratic regimes. And you may be sure that the result will be the same.

Dear Muslims

As salamu alekum

Satan will do his utmost to mislead us but the true believers he will not be able to touch. We must avoid using the terminologies of the kuffaar when talking of ourselves. Hold firmly onto the rope of Allah and be not divided.

Also, lets not pay any attention to people simply looking to ridicule Islam and its Prophet/s (peace be upon them).

Paying attention to the people mocking us is to be diverted from the truth.

alhamdulillah, the responses by the Muslims to this thread thus far has been good.

I can agree with everything you say, except:

"We must avoid using the terminologies of the kuffaar when talking of ourselves."

Since this forum is in English, I would recommend using words from the English lexicon.  Transliterations without definitions should not be tolerated by the moderators, it is essentially writing in arabic using English symbols, and having no meaning in English.  I only suggest this if you truly wish to abide by the rules of the forum and the spirit of discussion.

Also, if better terminology exists in Arabic but not in English to categorize self-proclaimed Muslims, please educate me with definitions and English sources so that I may enlightened.

Salam,

It took me time to decide to respond to Gru. I feel I need to.

Firstly,it is ovious you did not read the report, therfore you comments are just idle comments. You could not refute me from the report.

Secondly, it is obvious you did not read the report, therfore your comments are just idle comments. You can not classify a Muslim into one of the four catergories.

Thirdly, you compare the failed ideological system of Lennin/ Stalin/Marx to a way of life that is divine in origin. You have failed because by your own words..you did not believe in Communism..you must by defult believe in God..if you believe in God than by logic you know only divine codes work i.e. The Mosaic code, as they are still the fundamental bricks of the laws of the West.

Finally, I never have to worry. I stated that. The Rand report is flawed. Many of the contributors to the report are poor scholars. As a tax payer you should be angry that your hard working taxes are being used to help Muslims. Think, your tax dollars are going to educate bright Muslim minds, pay for the building of masjids, create business opportunities.

I need to thank you for allowing me the opportuinty to present my case...I do the believe the money is being allocated now..think of all the moderate mulsims who now have opportuintiy to succeed here..

As far as I know..every Muslim is a moderate..our faith tells us we have to be moderate in aspects of our lives...let me see 1.5 billion and growing ..

Mimimom,

re:"Secondly, it is obvious you did not read the report, therfore your comments are just idle comments. You can not classify a Muslim into one of the four catergories."

I read the 217 page report.  Please clarify, why not?  Is it your position all Muslims/Clerics/self-proclaimed Islamic leaders interpret and preach the same good/just message simply because they profess to be Muslim?  Is it your position all Muslims/Clerics/self-proclaimed Islamic leaders are inherently good simply because they profess to be Muslim? 

If Muslims refuse to categorize themselves (good self-proclaimed Muslims distancing themselves from evil self-proclaimed Muslims), what would you have non-Muslim do who "appear" to be victims of the teachings of Islam?

I would like to add the tenants of the platform of Democratic Muslims sited from Nader Khader (2002) in the RAND article(as a base for civilized interaction between all people no matter religion):

Salam,

Thank you for reading my response. I need to make it implictly clear I am not a scholar nor an authority on Islam. Given, that your response did make me think.

I have great difficulty understanding why a secular organization takes itself to attempt to identiy and label the practices of a religious group. My original statement simply addressess by what right does a secular group judge what is in the heart of a person. Only Allah knows what is in a human's heart.

The report attempts to divide and label Muslims on the action of the practice of their faith. If  I may, this is similar to stating a Roman Catholic is better than a Southern Baptist. Catholics go to church more. This is against the first amendment. No-one can label what is a good or bad believer. The Rand report is attempting to sway policy by attaching labels to the personal practices of a particular religion. Much of the criteria for the labeling is on the grounds of how individuals choose to worship.

I am not aware of any one who is a victim of Islam. Please be so kind as to give specifics. I know many who are the victims of hegemony of western states.

I am confused by the statemen"t We must all separate politics and religion, and we must never place religion above the laws of democracy (i.e. laws agreed by all people no matter religion)." The laws of democracy are embedded by the Judeo-Christian laws. Where does that place Israel?

Why do Muslims have to categorize themselves? I am not asking you to identify yourself whatsoever. I am not limiting you to a certain belief system.I am not asking you to disassociate yourself from anyone on the basis of your faith.  By no means am I asking you to pick the goodness of a Jerry Falwell over the evilness of a Pope. Once again this is akin to a form of oppression. Faith is personal and private.

If I were to meet two people one Muslim and one non-Muslim, I would greet the non-Muslim with utmost politness. Islam teaches us to have the best of manners. I would be a wondeful hostess, Islam teaches us to give to others as Allah gives to us.

 But,  I would greet my Muslim brother/sister and pray.  Forgive me, but when I see another Muslim my heart leaps for joy. Islam is the perfection of faith. Therefore, it supercedes nationalism. I am a Muslim first. I was, like everyone, born a Muslim and Inshalla I will die a Muslim. As Islam is the perfect way to live there is no need for Muslims to embrace any other social, political, or economical ideology. Are there good Muslims and bad Muslims, I am not the judge of good and bad. The Judge is Allah.

May Allah forgive me if I stated anything contrary to the edicts of Islam.

FOR EVERYONE:

Do you support or condone violence?
If you do not support or condone violence now, have you supported or condoned violence in the past?

Do you support democracy?
If you do, do you define democracy broadly in terms of individual rights?

Do you support internationally recognized human rights?

Do you make any exceptions? (e.g., regarding freedom of religion)?

Do you believe that changing religions is an individual right?

Do you believe the state should enforce the criminal-law component of shari’a?

Do you believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a?
Or do you believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a secular legal system?

Do you believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims?

Do you believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?

Do you believe that members of religious minority are entitled to build and run institutions of their faith (churches and synagogues) in Muslim majority countries?

Do you accept a legal system based on nonsectarian legal principles?

re: "3. No person must ever incite to hatred, and we must never allow hatred to enter our hearts."

As a general principle it is admirable. But what of Tyrants? Are we to love dictators and tyrants like Musharraf and Mubarak that take away the people's rights and torture them? Are you prepared to love these tyrants?

"The master of martyrs is Hamza and the man who accounted the tyrant ruler and the tyrant ruler killed him" (Hadith)

In Islam accounting the tyrant ruler is seen as the highest form of Jihad.
We Muslims prefer to live under elected, accountable, impleachable Caliphs, rather than the secular tyrants you would have us love (and have been supporting for decades and still are today).

I do not love or support any Tyrant.  To clarify, according to you, Islam allows (actually demands) hatred and discrimination for all homosexuals, all non-Muslims, all ex-Muslims, all women, anyone who disagrees with Islamic teachings, all secularist.  I hope this is not true, and please, someone other then Saladin verify or deny this statement (if no one disagrees I will assume it is true).
re: 4. No person must ever use or encourage violence—no matter how frustrated or wronged we feel, or how just our cause.

Really?

Two points:

1) National Self Defence during an invasion
2) Political Protest

1) Those nations like Iraq, that lack an army, navy and air force are easy prey to violent and tyrannical nations like America that oppresses weaker nations and has killed 2 million Iraqis in a genocide since 1991.

If that is the case not a single nation on the face of the earth would exist today. Every nation like every individual must have the right to self-defence (within reason). That is why the human body is fighting a constant war against billions of germs that would eat it alive were it not for the skin and immune system.

Self-defence is a right of every nation. Your principle is wrong. If you applied it Americans would never have fought the British and the USA would not exist.

2) Political actions to establish the elected, accountable, Islamic Caliphate based on Shariah Law, must be carried out without violence, according to the Example of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.)

The statement was very simple, talking about feelings and revenge.  I agree self defense, and national self defense are not feelings but are reactions by another's action, force is required and justified 

I also disagree with your quoted statistic, America has not killed 2 million Iraqis, nor has America committed genocide.  America has killed 10's of thousands soldiers and innocents, but no genocide, and no16 year war as you describe.  Please identify a source for such a number and a definition of genocide you are using.

re: 5. We must all make use of dialog—always.

Dialog is good. However, against the dirty thief who has entered your house and wishes to rape your wife it is useless. Only the shotgun can reason with such a person. So we Muslims do not recognize the right of Israel to exist and not dialog is necessary, with the thief.

They will give back our land of Palestine - all of it - or die. What do you think?

I think that is extreme and if you feel so strongly maybe you should go to Palestine and help out your fellow Muslim if you truly believe this.  Obviously Palestinians Muslim neighboring countries appear to approve of Israel's existence, and all Muslim nations for that matter, if they did not I would expect open war.  If you do not go to Palestine and help your fellow Muslims, you are inciting hatred for no purpose but hatred seeing that neighbors have already accepted the Israelis.  I would also suggest if your going is not 'feasible' for you, that you try campaigning against Israel and the U.S. support rather then spreading rumors and half-truths.  The point, try using constructive dialogue, and do not incite hatred.  Israel is not my cause nor can I speak intelligently about its history nor its current situation.

That my ancestors fought and died over that land just so that i would give it away? Never. Even if the Muslim dictators are cowards, the noble Ummah of Muhammad (S.A.W.) is brave.

You can stick your haram "peace process" in the rubbish bin.
We will take back Palestine as we took it back before insha-Allah.

Fine, say Palestine is reclaimed by the Muslims, where would you have Muslims march next? Germany? Canada? Japan?  What about the lands of disagreeing Muslims?  I see never ending cycle of violence, this is the problem.  Does Islam offer advice on preventing genocide or injustice to non-Muslims?

re: "6. We must all show respect for the freedom of expression, also of those with whom we disagree the most (i.e. non-Muslims or Muslims with whom you disagree)."

Partly agree. Freedom of Expression to criticize unjust and un-Islamic Tyrants is critical. It must be protected. However, we Muslims do not tolerate freedom to publish pornography. Are you seriously suggesting we do? The Quran defines the limits. Impeachment or removal of Kufr-implementing corrupt Muslim rulers? It is an Islamic obligation.
Publishing pornography? Completely forbidden. The Quran cannot be changed.

What about non-Muslim nations who do not agree with this ban-**** policy? (Surely Germany has tons of porno, and more legal prostitutes then in all of the U.S.)  What about Muslim nations that already accept pornography?  (when in Bahrain, Saudi, U.A.E., Egypt, and Jordan I had Muslims proud to show me their access to pornography while at work...these were Muslims working in hospitals and I was quite offended of being shown the filth, why was I insulted with such treatment (I never asked for this and mentioned that I view pornography, they must have assumed since I am a Westerner?)  Should these Muslims be punished?  How as a non-Muslim should I have reacted to this?  I felt in a Muslim nation I had no course of action, in the West I could have went to a supervisor and reported this and had the person fired.

However, We Muslims are "The Best Nation" (Quran) because we "enjoin the Good and forbid the Evil and believe in the One God"

So we are better than you (insha-Allah) because we are Muslims and we do Good and forbid Evil and believe in God and we are proud to be Muslims. Alhamdulillah

hmmmm, and the superiority complex Muslims preach about Americans.  I am proud to be an American and you are not better then me.  You lack of self-control and respect are saddening.  Arrogance will never help Islam.

re: "10. We must all stand up for our opponent if he or she is subjected to spiteful treatment."

Right. So you are going to go to Guantanamo Bay Cuba and demand the release of the Prisoners of War there are you? No? Why not?

Yes, I do speak out against Guantanamo Bay Cuba.  And no, I will not go there for the same reason you ar not leaving Germany.  As you can see many Americans are speaking out against Cuba, however, I do not see hardly any Muslims speaking out against suicide missions against innocents against Muslim and non-Muslim alike.  Do you condemn violence against non combatants? No? Why not?

Salam,

It is very difficult to have dialouge when the connations of words used are not found in the same lexicon.

What disheartned me the most from the response of Vision was the constant thread of paronia. The perception of this enemy out to get my family. This enemy is the entire ummah of Islam. Logically and rationally it can not be so. One billiion people are not out to get anyone.

The Rand report was written and funded by a group that has a specific political agenda. There is no objectivivity in a report written by people who are not particioners of a faith. An outsider looking in can never understand what the insider is doing. If I may, I can never know what a prisoner feels, I am outside the jail. Or, I can never know what the wedding feast is like if I am looking from oustide. 

You asked me to help identify Muslims who may be your enemy. I am a Muslim. I live as a Mulsim, Inshalla, I will die as a Muslim. If you hate one Muslim you hate all.Islam is the religion of Love.Inshalla, I will die believing that.

There can be no communication if you have a preconcieved idea of what reality is. There leaves no room for reality..if you have defined what you have elimiated from reality..you have precepts that blind your vision...this reminds me of the old story of the blind men and the elephant.

One of the beauties of Islam is the constant need to educate ourselves and seek knowldege..the greatest western philosophers had to turn to Islam to gain knowledge. This is no fabrication. The laws of democracry and social contracts are taken from Islam.

You seem to be hungry for knowldege. Please keep in contact with our scholars and those who have knowledge. I am a simple woman who will defend my faith, as do all Muslims.

I pray Allah to guide you to Reality. I thank you for reading my thoughts. I am grateful that others are assisting you to recognize the totality of our faith.Islam is not limited to a singular reality. It is Reality.

re:"It is very difficult to have dialouge when the connations of words used are not found in the same lexicon."

I agree, that is an issue with cultures having dialogue.  I suggest when a single word in English does not exist for the idea you are expressing try describing the idea or pasting a link to a website in English that does.

re:"What disheartned me the most from the response of Vision was the constant thread of paronia.

I am not paranoid, I have seen videos/protests/websites of Islamic clerics preaching death to all Westerners, non-Muslims, Americans...I happen to be of all three of those groups.  In fact, organizations within Iran have been preaching death to Americas since 1979.  Prudence in asking questions with assumptions defined is how discussion leads to understanding.

re:"The perception of this enemy out to get my family. This enemy is the entire ummah of Islam."

Please use English, in this case 'ummah' I found to mean 'nation'...there is no nation of Islam, Islam is a religion and Iraq is a nation.  This is basic English, if you perceive your ideology as a nation that is a problem.  Leaders of ideologies do not  make decisions for relations with other nations, only national leaders have that authority.  I do not believe Islam is my enemy, my enemy are those peolpe who intend me death, as preached by Muslim clerics.  I also believe the ideas spread by Islamic terrorist and hatefilled Islamic clerics to be my enemy as well.  To clarify, the religion of islam is not my enemy...unless it wishes to change ANY thing about me or my existence within the United States (currently I do not think that is the case, but the RAND report should help clarify)  You think I am paranoid if I believe someone preaching my death actually wishes me death?

re:"Logically and rationally it can not be so. One billiion people are not out to get anyone."

I hope the number is actually a small minority, but I am not sure about this as 'terrorist' factories appear to be popping up around Europe.

re:"The Rand report was written and funded by a group that has a specific political agenda."

I disagree, I use RAND reports monthly for the forecasting in healthcare, again, RAND is not associated with any political movement/party.  Please see the RAND organization website for its mission, funding, and clients.  Also, if you want to identify the motive of anyone, please site references.  I ahve already sited RANDS objective and provided links to their website.  if you have proof that RAND is a political organization with political motives, please but al means, provide some documentation.

 re:"There is no objectivivity in a report written by people who are not particioners of a faith."

This is your assumption and rather narrow-minded.  By your logic only Christians can categorize Christians, only atheist can categorize atheist, only women can categorize women, only children can categorize children, etc, etc.  I agree, Muslims are needed to further refine categorizations about the differences in the practice of Islam across cultures, but non-Muslims can create reports about ANY ideology and my observations on motives and purpose, especially to categorize.  This is the foundation of any science.

An outsider looking in can never understand what the insider is doing. If I may, I can never know what a prisoner feels, I am outside the jail. Or, I can never know what the wedding feast is like if I am looking from oustide.

Maybe you cannot, but many 'ology's exist in the study of humans, religion is not different and is not beyond study by the non-religious. 

re:"You asked me to help identify Muslims who may be your enemy. I am a Muslim. I live as a Mulsim, Inshalla, I will die as a Muslim. If you hate one Muslim you hate all.Islam is the religion of Love.Inshalla, I will die believing that."

That is pure irrationality.  I hate Islamic terrorist and islamic dictators that kill innocent victims, so you hate me?  The fact they are Muslim is irrelevant to why I hate them, for I would hate all terrorist and dictators based on these disgusting actions.  Your debate tactic is called a straw-man argument, I advise you to research.  Please clarify your argument, if you do hate me for hating any Muslim that is irrational.  Are you of the mind all Muslims do not deserve hate simply for the fact they profess to be Muslim?  Do you disagree with the word hate?  Do you not see the irrationality of your statement?

re;"There can be no communication if you have a preconcieved idea of what reality is.

I agree, appears your reality all Muslims are peaceful and deserve only love.  Please clarify.  I believe I am actually better grounded in reality and see that there is a movement from within the members of Islam (I hope only a minority) that wishes death to Americans, non-Muslims, Westerners, etc etc.

There leaves no room for reality..if you have defined what you have elimiated from reality..you have precepts that blind your vision...this reminds me of the old story of the blind men and the elephant.

I disagree, I learn and grow, and so my reality changes continuously.  I also question and constantly rethink my own assumptions.  I challenge you to challenge my assumptions.  I also challenge you to challenge your assumptions about other Muslims, its Islamic teachings, and both their impacts they are  having on the world... both positive and negative.

 re:"I am a simple woman who will defend my faith, as do all Muslims."

This is one of your assumptions, that all Muslims will defend their 'faith'..and you may be assuming how all Muslims defined it exactly the same and how all Muslims perceive the faith being attacked exactly the same.  I would challenge you that the fact I am alive is perceived by some Muslims as a challenge to their faith, and that I must be sacrificed in the name of their faith.  Do you believe that no Muslim is for this?  How would you define who a Muslim is? (I describe anyone who claims to be a Muslim to be 'a Muslim')

re:"I pray Allah to guide you to Reality. I thank you for reading my thoughts. I am grateful that others are assisting you to recognize the totality of our faith.Islam is not limited to a singular reality. It is Reality."

I am not interested in the true teachings of Islam, I do not believe any one Muslim can tell me anyway.  I am interested in how individuals such as yourself understand the teachings, and what assumptions that creates and could be aiding the movement of hate preached by some Islamic clerics. 

Do you disagree a movement of hate against my culture, religion, nation, and life exists from some Islamic clerics?

I am not paranoid, I have seen videos/protests/websites of Islamic clerics preaching death to all Westerners, non-Muslims, Americans

Nay, while some people may be fanatical (and that is not acceptable to Islam) if we to unpack these slogans into books you will find it simply meaning the following:

The Rulers of western countries have brought great harm and difficulty on many a nation or country through essentially their policies and then also their military exploits.

So we are saying, death (as in let them be judged for the murders and mayhem) to those who perpetrate these evil actions and death to their policies and ideas. We are not suggesting death to every western civilian for that is a great wrong.

Please use English, in this case 'ummah' I found to mean 'nation'...there is no nation of Islam, Islam is a religion and Iraq is a nation

Alas not, "verily this nation of yours is but a single brotherhood" - Islam pays no credence to man made geographical boundaries. this does not mean that there cannot be 'self-rule' as in local government, but overall the nation of Islam is one with ONE ruler.

I hope the number is actually a small minority, but I am not sure about this as 'terrorist' factories appear to be popping up around Europe.

This is a subjective comment and there is no evidence of there being any uniform action or authority.

That is pure irrationality.  I hate Islamic terrorist and islamic dictators that kill innocent victims, so you hate me?

Again, would you view your leaders/rulers similarly.

This is one of your assumptions, that all Muslims will defend their 'faith'..and you may be assuming how all Muslims defined it exactly the same and how all Muslims perceive the faith being attacked exactly the same.  I would challenge you that the fact I am alive is perceived by some Muslims as a challenge to their faith, and that I must be sacrificed in the name of their faith.  Do you believe that no Muslim is for this?  How would you define who a Muslim is? (I describe anyone who claims to be a Muslim to be 'a Muslim')

Someone who says he is a Muslim is generally regarded as such. However, wrongdoers and sinners abound and being a Muslim does not make one infallible. Having your (as in "Vision") own ideas in a non-Muslim country does not make you an enemy to Muslims. However, it is what you  do with you ideas that becomes an issue. Anyone who kills a mon-Muslim simply because of their faith is a murderer. To kill without justification is a big sin. Only though an authority can one wage war else it must be in self-defence.

Likewise you will have freedom in Muslim countries where you come in peace. However, if you enter a strife-torn area/region then you may obviously put yourself at risk.

I live with non-Muslims and they are my neighbours. I have not killed anyone, nor do I have any view on killing them in the future. They have allowed me to practice my religion and have been friendly. I DO oppose their laws which are unjust in terms of Allah's laws but I do that within the confines of the laws of this country.

You once again have obviously not even tried to read or understand what I posted.

The hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says:

When any of you see a wrong- change it with your hands, and if  you cannot do that, then speak out against it and if  you cannot even do that, then at least make dua (in our hearts), but the last is the weakest form of eemaan.

I did not say that I will break Allah's laws but I said  will work within the confines of the law of the country which is permissible by the mercy of Allah which is what I quoted.

So alas, oh you who disbelieve, come to a way that is better for Allah's way is the best.

re:"Nay, while some people may be fanatical (and that is not acceptable to Islam) if we to unpack these slogans into books you will find it simply meaning the following:  The Rulers of western countries have brought great harm and difficulty on many a nation or country through essentially their policies and then also their military exploits.  So we are saying, death (as in let them be judged for the murders and mayhem) to those who perpetrate these evil actions and death to their policies and ideas. We are not suggesting death to every western civilian for that is a great wrong."

Still, some Muslims Clerics are preaching precariously about death to all Western/non-Muslim/Americans/etc .  I appreciate your insight, however, some Islamic leaders and their followers have preached death and carried terrorist actions creating death. 

How do your rationalize terrorist attacks from Islamic terrorist in the name of a faith?

re:"This is a subjective comment and there is no evidence of there being any uniform action or authority."

Agreed, this is subjective.  I neither know the true source, but observation based on arrest metrics/police reports/ terrorist events localized in specific cities in Europe support this conclusion.  In addition, Islamic terrorist organizations also provide propaganda both in support of terrorist actions in European cities with concentrations of Muslims as well as propaganda to praise when such events occur causing death to innocent civilians. 

How do you rationalize the propaganda from these terrorist organizations that both call for terrorist acts in the name of Islam as well as praising such acts after they occur? 

re:"Again, would you view your leaders/rulers similarly."

I further clarified my statement in the previous post to include all terrorist activities against innocent civilians no matter the ideology/religion that is claimed.  I would further add that if my leaders target civilians (especially not in recognized war zones) I would protest against my leaders and send aid to the victims.

Do you condemn Islamic terrorist who have specifically targeted and killed innocent civilians?  Is your analogy that if I condemn my leaders of such acts that Islamic terrorist and their planners are your leaders?

Abu, I appreciate your objectivity and would ask to turn that objectivity toward Islamic clerics preaching hate as well as some of the other posters in this forum preaching hate (Muslims and non-Muslims alike.)  The fact that you find it necessary to operate within the laws of your country is admirable, however, many Muslims are not as peace-loving as yourself (see any Islamic terrorist actions targeting innocent civilians and expanding the geographical boundaries of war zones)

I also live among many Muslims and have worked/toured in many Muslim countries.  I also call many Muslims friends and neighbors., however, they are also targets of the Islamic clerics inciting hate and death for Westerners (not just Western governmental leaders and Western philosophy)

How do your rationalize terrorist attacks from Islamic terrorist in the name of a faith?

This statement is a contradiction in itself. On the other hand. the word terrorist is bandied around too easily. I live in South Africa and are  now ruled by people who were branded 'terrorist'. They were a banned group and I too called for their unbanning- does that make me a terrorist?

Do you condemn Islamic terrorist who have specifically targeted and killed innocent civilians?  Is your analogy that if I condemn my leaders of such acts that Islamic terrorist and their planners are your leaders

I cannot say that there are leaders who incite to random violence. Where people are committing acts of random violence, then they are to be judged by that countries laws and they have to face the consequences. We all talk about challenging injustice but I cannot say that the leaders whom I respect have called to violence.

As for those who call to WAR without a mandate and authority, then they have no right todo that because warfare is a disciplined and definite action taken by Muslims. I am not going into detail on any specific 'terrorist' incident or case because I pay little attention to the western media (for a whole host of obvious reasons - another thread perhaps)

We can differentiate between leaders/rulers and smaller groupings. Again I say , only through disciplined action may war be waged. This is where Muslims are exhorted to prepare for war so that they may defend themselves and know how to do it. Any person or group who engages in an activity which is not in conformance with the commands of Allah, are wrongdoers and subject to legal sanction (whatever ruling is applicable).

Looking at the world map today, there are NO Muslim ruler who can claim to have the confidence of the Muslims and many of them are inclined to the West. As for religious leaders, they all have followers but I doubt whether even in any one country one religious leader has a unanimous following. If the latter was the case perhaps we would have seen a change in RULE.

So, Islam does not advocate random violence, violence (war) against women and Children and anyone guilty of that has done a grave wrong.

Here's the punchline, opposing those who do wrong and incite random violence, makes on a fundamentalist for that means holding onto the fundamentals of the Deen of Islam.

However, the constant harassment of anyone who even sports a beard or wears an arab robe or the like, is not helpful in promoting peace.

There currently is no one leadership that Muslims can talk of and we are striving to re-implement to Caliphate which last existed during the Ottoman empire before it was destroyed by the likes of Britain and France.

re:"How do your rationalize terrorist attacks from Islamic terrorist in the name of a faith?

This statement is a contradiction in itself. On the other hand. the word terrorist is bandied around too easily. I live in South Africa and are  now ruled by people who were branded 'terrorist'. They were a banned group and I too called for their unbanning- does that make me a terrorist?"

I appreciate your thoughtful honest response, appears we may have different definitions on terrorist and furthermore different thoughts about using the term 'Islamic terrorist.'  When I use the term 'Islamic terrorist' I am simply trying to distinguish the movement to use 'terror' as a weapon in the name of a religion or culture.  I would only label terrorist based on an act of terrorism (not self-defense and specifically targeting non-combat humans) OR, if someone labels themselves as part of a terrorist organization.  My questions are narrowed into these assumptions and we may not agree on the answer but for constructive discussion we have to fully agree on definitions.  Furthermore, I have no informtion that would make me label you a terrorist.

As for those who call to WAR without a mandate and authority, then they have no right todo that because warfare is a disciplined and definite action taken by Muslims. I am not going into detail on any specific 'terrorist' incident or case because I pay little attention to the western media (for a whole host of obvious reasons - another thread perhaps)

I understand this, and assume this has to do with your belief in the bias of Western media.  I would agree, most Western institutions are biased towards the West if you would agree all Muslim ME institutions, Islamic Institutions and Arabic or Persian institutions are biased to their respective constituents.  This is inherently their purpose, for whom they represent.

We can differentiate between leaders/rulers and smaller groupings. Again I say , only through disciplined action may war be waged. This is where Muslims are exhorted to prepare for war so that they may defend themselves and know how to do it. Any person or group who engages in an activity which is not in conformance with the commands of Allah, are wrongdoers and subject to legal sanction (whatever ruling is applicable).

I would add, to exist on the world stage, groups representing Muslims must also adhere to basic standards created in absence of a religion (all nations and its civilians do not follow the teachings of Islam and cannot be expected to abide and know the rules of Islam, whereas all nations are members of the U.N. and can agree to basic standards...which could be congruent with Islam and have much insight from Islam, but not necessarily 100% Islamic.)  I am not advocating Muslims reject their faith, I am advocating Muslims to identify basic principles that can be agreed upon by all people...the lowest common denominator.

There currently is no one leadership that Muslims can talk of and we are striving to re-implement to Caliphate which last existed during the Ottoman empire before it was destroyed by the likes of Britain and France.

Inherently the only conclusion form this would be war, not with the West directly, more directly among ME and  Muslim countries.  Once war is waged, allies by default of treaty are also included unless some mechanism like the U.N. is engaged to referee.  I hope you understand Muslims advocating a Caliphate are a minority of the world (even within the ranks of Muslims), and do not have the power and infrastructure to implement such authority.  Any attempts via war of violence in this goal will incite war and violence from all nations, because it will be viewed as tyranny to create a massive dictatorship.

I would add, to exist on the world stage, groups representing Muslims must also adhere to basic standards created in absence of a religion (all nations and its civilians do not follow the teachings of Islam and cannot be expected to abide and know the rules of Islam, whereas all nations are members of the U.N. and can agree to basic standards...which could be congruent with Islam and have much insight from Islam, but not necessarily 100% Islamic.)  I am not advocating Muslims reject their faith, I am advocating Muslims to identify basic principles that can be agreed upon by all people...the lowest common denominator.

As a Muslim, and there are a fair number of Muslims who would agree with me, but the UN does not interest of the entire world population. Furthermore, it is a toothless organisation. The latter point is a fact borne out by their security council to veto war on Iraq, yet a member country can do so without sanction. Nay, Muslims more than any must be aggrieved by this.

I hope you understand Muslims advocating a Caliphate are a minority of the world (even within the ranks of Muslims), and do not have the power and infrastructure to implement such authority.  Any attempts via war of violence in this goal will incite war and violence from all nations, because it will be viewed as tyranny to create a massive dictatorship.

I don't know the exact answer to this but would believe it may be a 50/50. However, the 50% against it would be saying so largely because of ignorance for it is an important part of the Islamic state which knows no boundaries. Having said that it does not mean it has legitimacy in non-Muslim territories, but rather has control over such areas as is ruled by Muslims.

As for the term Muslim/Islamic terrorist in the name of the religion then this statement is already flawed. Anybody who has a mandate to fight in the name of Allah (and there His religion of Islam or the oppressed) cannot be a terrorist. This mandate must be given by the Caliph and in the absence of a caliph a ruler of a "country" /region.

As for anything to the contrary then these person/s do not have a mandate and cannot be termed Muslim/Islamic 'terrorists' because they do not represent the ummah. Likewise a Roman Catholic involved in acts of terror does not make this person a Roman Catholic terrorist unless sanctioned as such by the Pope of his nominee.

Anyone perpetrating something without sanction does so out of his own volition and must be judged accordingly.

As for the bias of any media or region, then this may be true. However, with all due respect, one may ask most Americans where Iraq is, then they will not really know. Neither, are they able to begin to distinguish between an Arab and an Indian or more so between a Muslim and a Sikh (as in dress code). Yet these Americans favoured a war.

The conclusion is simple that the western media dominate and have gone to great lengths to show a distorted picture. Were they in anyway interested in peace, they would be less bias and more informative.

Salaam,

This is in response to Vision.

I have repeated told you that the Rand Corp. has a political motive. You keep stating the negative.

The Rand report was funded by The Smith Richardson foundation.  That is financed by the Vicks Vapor Rub fortune. They give money to conservative think tanks. "'

Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought. Real academics are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second, but this process is often reversed at most policy-driven think tanks. As writer Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify.'''''

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks

As I stated earlier, the Rand report was funded by a conservative think tank with a specific agenda. Given that there is no objectivity. Thus it renders the report to be invalid and unrelialbe.

Please before you exercise against Muslims do your homework and research your grounds.

I appreciate the link and the general information about the current situations with 'Think Tanks', and how new Think Tanks are being created in an effort to sway public opinion to one political affiliation over another.  However, the Smith Richardson Foundation was founded far before this recent phenomenon, and has a 60 year corporate culture in place that is not congruent with what your are asserting that they are anti-Islam and not objective to Islam.

You have repeatedly stated the RAND organization is biased with this specific report, but yet to provide any support to your opinion.  Luckily this last post provides some insight into your opinions.  You also provided a statement about a different 'Think Tank" the Heritage Foundation, which I agree is conservative and normally follows a political agenda, which I would draw distinction with both the RAND Center for Middle East Policy and the Smith Richardson Foundation.  Since I have already provided links to RAND and its grantors, below are additional links for the Smith Richardson Foundation and copies from their mission statement and their founding principles.

However, I have not found any documentation anywhere about the RAND corporation, nor its Center for Middle East Public policy that suggest the research done is politically motivated and biased.  Using your own source:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Middle_East_Public_Policy

I was able to do additional research in the additional board members, appears many members come from Western Liberal education institutions as well as corporations with financial/economic interest in immediate peace. (appears politically balanced with funding, leaders, and resources)

Specifically the arm of RAND responsible for this report, I encourage all to visit and make your own conclusions on the validity of the report:

http://www.rand.org/nsrd/cmepp/

In addition, the Smith Richardson IS a conservative organization with a specific agenda, as stated in its mission statement, this attribute does not make it biases against Islam nor does it make it less objective to bias for Islam...I would actually argue the fact that it is conservative would actually make it biased in Muslim's favor (are you suggesting Muslims are what Westerners would describe as liberal?):

"The mission of the Smith Richardson Foundation is to contribute to important public debates and to help address serious public policy challenges facing the United States. The Foundation seeks to help ensure the vitality of our social, economic, and governmental institutions. It also seeks to assist with the development of effective policies to compete internationally and to advance U.S. interests and values abroad. This mission is embodied in our international and domestic grant programs."

I encourage all to visit their website as well:

http://www.srf.org/mission

Make your own conclusions about this organization.  My opinion I do not see any anti-Islam in their mission as U.S. interests are U.S. citizens, which include a vast number of Muslims.

(If anti-Islam was a message, the moderators would remove my links and this thread, proof again the RAND report is not anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim, the Smith Richardson Foundations is not anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim, the RAND corporation is not anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim)

Also, Smith Richardson heritage and philosophy of the organization:

"The Smith Richardson Foundation was established in 1935 by H. Smith Richardson and his wife, Grace Jones Richardson. He lived by principles that are often termed old-fashioned, and he gave generously of his wealth. Few people have combined Mr. Richardson's respect for traditional values and his willingness to innovate. He believed in giving bright young people responsibility commensurate with their abilities. Throughout his life he maintained a direct interest in people and institutions conceived to improve the lives of others. There was a rich complexity to him that impressed everyone who knew him.

In setting forth his reasons for creating the Foundation in 1935, he wrote:

"From the beginning, America, the new world...has offered to humble families, native born or immigrant, the Opportunity to gain a fortune...if they were diligent and lucky. With this fortune went the Right to remain secure in its possession and enjoyment for themselves and their heirs after them...Unquestionably, for two hundred years this Opportunity has played a large part in the building of the nation."

Mr. Richardson pointed out the incentive that this "Right" and "Opportunity" has given to those who pushed the American frontier westward, as well as the impetus to "invention, discovery, trade and manufacture and all the varied development of our natural resources." It was characteristic of him to capitalize the words "Opportunity" and "Right": these were key words in his personal creed. He believed that "Opportunity" was something to be pursued with the utmost diligence and seized with zeal. His belief in a personal bill of rights was equally strong: a person rightfully owned what his industry brought him, and the free enterprise system permitted the maximum scope for industry. It was these qualities which enabled him to transform his father's small mortar-and-pestle drug manufacturing business into an industrial concern of international stature. By 1935, a strong social consciousness had begun to flourish in this soil of stout individualism.

To this end, Mr. Richardson wrote of the responsibilities required of a mature and reflective citizenship:

"I believe the need for the time and thought of able men is that they be applied to the increasingly weighty problems of government and the serious social questions which now confront us and will continue to press for solution in the future...the greater the material wealth of the citizen the greater are his obligations to the State and Nation...the obligations to give his time and thought to these public and social problems."

The Foundation continues to support programs that are consistent with the vision of its Founder."

I would argue Mr Richardson's spirit and philosophy would be congruent with the teachings of Islam, and the objectives to peace.  I would further suggest that individuals criticizing the validity of the report, the RAND corporation, and the Smith Richardson foundation to question their own assumptions and biases they are bringing into the debate.  I admit, I do have certain conscience biases due to my Western heritage, I also have unconscience bias as well that cloud arguments towards my preconceived assumptions.  I would suggest all humans, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, have such biases.  We must question our bias peacefully rather then letting those biases control and direct us.

Salam,

Conservative think tank. A conservative think tank is limited to a politcal agenda. I do not have a bias as I did not limit my thinking to works put out by political think tanks.

Please do not make the mistake of suggesting that all humans think like you. You have your word view that you defend by using your vocabulary. You want justification from others when they will not accept your world view with your bias.

All the ranting and ravings of a certain group of paid political people can not change the belief systems of another group.

I wish you well in your world..to you and yours peace..I remain faithful to the world and words of Islam where there is no duplicity.

Interesting, appears you select specific facts to support your biased conclusions while ignoring other facts.

re:"1) The bombing of civilian power stations in Iraq-------------------------------------------------------

In the early 1990s Gulf War America generals deliberately bombed Iraq's civilian power stations to "use that as a bargaining chip" against Saddam Hussein.

By cutting of the electricity supply they knew it would stop the water pumps operating. So the water was cut too. Women and children in Iraq suffered the most. The West hoped that this "suffering" could be used as a "bargaining chip" to pressurize the tyrant Saddam into capitulating. He did not. And ordinary Iraqis paid the price."

This is selective reporting at best.  While the West did destroy 2 additional powerstations (out of 37) after the gulfwar in a reprimand attempt, Saddam and other evil Muslims alike used this opportunity to campaign worldwide for donations on behalf of the Iraqis affected by the lack of water and power.  The money was ultimately funneled "compassionately" for various personal desires of Muslim leaders and terrorist organizations.  You are correct in that ordinary Iraqis suffered due to a lack of power and water, but you are incorrect in blaming an event that happened in 1992 for continued suffering in 1994 and beyond.  Western nations even donated money and resources continuously as well to aid the ordinary Iraqis, any deaths that occured after (say 2 years) can be fully attributed to the corrupt Muslims who selfishly funneled aid that was donated specifically to aid the Iraqis.  Americans cannot be blamed for the injustice of these Muslims.

"2) Terrorism under the Guise of "No-Fly" Zones
-------------------------------------------------

It is well documented by even Western journalisms like John Pilger that the West engaged in systematic terrorism against the Iraqi civilians throughout the 1990s. In fact as Saddam was bombong the Kurds, American F16 were seen flying overhead "as observers""

Yes, this is a result of an agreement at the U.N. among all nations, without this agreement war would have continued.  So you are blaming the American F16 for the killings committed by Saddam's Muslim henchmen and thieves?  Also, you are labeling the terms of the agreement as terrorism...maybe Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait?  Your logic in assigning blame is full of bias and assumptions, I ask you to question those assumptions.  Only Saddam can be blamed for the atrocities he ordered, why would you disrespect those Muslims he tortured and killed by blaming jets flying in the sky at 25000+ feet with orders to track and engage other jet aircraft?  I do not understand your logic on this assertion.

re:"3) The Sanctions that killed 500,000 children alone
-------------------------------------------------------

Madeline Albright (The former US secretary of State) stated that she thought the death of over half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying". These words are etched into the minds of every Muslim on the planet Earth. The West deliberately killed those children. Ms Albright acknowledged as much."

Interesting, do you realize that a "sanction", by definition, was a penalty imposed on Iraq as a direct result of Muslims marching in hate into Kuwait, and the resulting "sanctions" for this act were signed by ALL Muslim nations, not just the Western nations.  Again, the paradox that appears over and over in the world of Islam, it is OK for Muslims to kill Muslims, it is OK for Muslims to torture Muslims, it is OK for Muslims to desecrate the bodies of Muslims, but speech taken out of context from one American makes all Americans directly responsible for how Muslims kill other Muslims. hmmmmmmmm, I ask you to question your assumptions and bias, and why you seek to place ALL blame of the West when clearly the blame primarily goes towards Muslims committing these atrocities.  I can agree some blame goes to the West and its foreign policy, but the bulk of the blame for killings of Muslims by Muslims deserves to be attributed to those Muslim murderers committing the act.

re:"4) The current massacres in Iraq are the result of Americans "Black Ops" strategy (the so-called El-Salvador Option)"

I agree, so called 'black' operations are occurring in Iraq, and are accounted for in the 10's of thousands of deaths directly attributed to American actions since the Iraq war began.  If you are attempting to assign blame to Americans for sectarian violence of Muslims perpetrated on Muslims, again I ask you to question your bias.  Merely open your eyes and read reports from sources you trust, you will see the sectarian violence has nothing to do with Westerners, as the target and perpetrators are 100% Muslim from the ME.  Americans will accept blame for the 10's of thousands of Muslims directly slaughtered (combatant and innocent), but we will not accept the blame for atrocities committed by 'brother' against 'brother.'

Point 5 is a writers' opinion and has nothing to do with your contention of 2 million Muslims being killed directly by Western forces.

Capitalism is here to stay, and it is not a culture/religion/political system in conflict with Islam, and it is not an ideology like Islam nor form of government like communism.  Capitalism is an economic system and nothing more, and your argument that capitalism is blood-soaked is ignorant of the definition and assigning blame out of prejudice and bias. 

I would also like to educate you in that capitalism is the only economic system of all world history to actually increase the standard of living in any nation, ever!  Standards of living rose for the first time in world history in Western nations begining around the mid 18th century.  I suggest you study macroeconomics and the history of world and foreign national GDP (and other economic metrics) to better understand capitalism's impact on the economies of the world.  Blanket statements interchanging culture, religion, science, politics, economics, and race are not appropriate for anything but Islam.  Islam is the only system that I am aware of that preaches in each area.

You attempt to assign blame for every death (real and fictional) on Westerners is disgusting.  Before assigning blame to auxiliary actors, Muslims should look in the mirror and place the blame where it directly belongs

re:"As Muslims we are told by God that "You are the best nation sent forward for mankind Because you enjoin the good and forbid the evil and believe in the One God.") This is not arrogant. It is fact. (no offense intended)."

Regardless, I am extremly insulted, you should apologize.

The rest of your post is your opinion and I see no reason or flexibility for discussion.

re"But the real question is: Why is a Western life worth more than a Non-Western life in the Media? In Islam ALL life is precious: Those who have been killed by terrorists in New York AND those who have been killed by terrorists (translation: Americans) in Iraq
"

This is you opinion of the media, but in my opinion I have NEVER heard anyone in the media state the Westerners were worth more then non-Westerners...I have heard you and other Muslims state that some lives have less worth.  Do you not see the hypocracy?  You (specifically) distinguish people's lives based on demographics, religion, and gender....or, you do not understand English.  Read your posts.  In American culture, ALL life is precious.  Even the non-Muslims, ex-Muslims, homosexuals, and even the terrorists have rights to life.

Just recently Iran supreme court approved the murder of civilian Muslims by other civilian Muslims because the admitted murderers said the victims were 'morally corrupt.'  No evidence, no trial, just let one group kill another because they disagree with them.  This is a paradox within Islam.  Why is killing these poeple ok, while you tell me ALL life is precious.  I actually believe all life is precious.

re:"Yes. America IS at war with all Muslims. because it wants us to live under Capitalism, where as we want to live under our elected, accountable Caliphate.  Its a new cold war. Not against Communism. But against Islam. Only this time Capitalism will lose."

I can agree with part of this statement, you are correct, Capitalism is at war with Islam...but America (a nation) is not at war with Islam (and ideology.)

Why would capitalism be preventing a Caliphate?  I do not understand this argument.

I thought further about this, actually Islam is at war with America, and has identified America as the 'source' of capitalism within its culture...which is simply not true because capitalism existed before America culture.  Only Islamic terrorists are attacking American culture on a global scale.

re:"Nuclear Bombing"

Only two reasons are preventing nuclear war, compassion for humans, and we haven't been provoked.  My argument is the compassion will be gone with another terrorist attack.