BAIT AND SWITCH IN IRAQ

The president has tried various themes and slogans
on why we are in Iraq. For a long time it was
"democracy." That was repeated over and over in
his speeches. But it wouldn't sell in Iraq. There is
no Arabic word for democracy. Of the 22 Arab
countries, none is or ever has been, a functioning
democracy.

It's sure not about to happen in Iraq! The Shia
majority there want an Islamic state. The Sunni
Arab minority refuses to participate in a Shia
dominated government allied with Iran. Sunnis
in al-Maliki's cabinet are boycotting it, and Sunnis
in parliament are threatening to quit altogether.

To distract our attention from the disintegrating
government, Bush has discovered a new reason why
we are in Iraq. It's al Qaeda! He repeated it 27 times
in one speech -- as many times as he used to say
"freedom." It's a great theme for him, because we'll
have to stay there as long as they do, and they'll stay,
of course, as long as we do. Can you say "permanent
bases?" Remember, every day we're in Iraq, al Qaeda
worldwide gets stronger. Osama loves it!

Although 90% of our casualties come from the
insurgency, which is not dependent on AIQ, our
military reports (and news stories about them) now
simply refer to all enemies in Iraq as "al Qaeda." In
reality, al Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ) makes up maybe 5%
of the fighting forces there. So that's one more of
the long string of dishonesty that has permeated
our misadventure there.

By the way: whatever happened to the benchmarks?
Peter Galbraith, in a powerful article in The New York
Review of Books entitled "Iraq: The Way to Go," lists
the essential measures regarding oil revenue sharing,
provincial elections, constitutional revision, reversing
de-Baathification, and fair distribution of reconstruction
funds. Some minor and fairly meaningless ones have
passed, but Galbraith says of these essentials: "Iraq's
government has not met one of the benchmarks, and
with the exception of the revenue-sharing law, most
are unlikely to happen. But even if they were all
enacted, it would not help. Provincial elections will
make Iraq less governable while the process of
constitutional revision could break the country apart."

Galbraith goes on to explain how and why the
political war in Iraq is lost. I covered some of that
in the last blog. So we can go on pretending we are
doing something worthwhile, but the further we keep
going, the behinder we get.

Anytime Mr. Bush really wants to get rid of AIQ, all
he has to do is join up with Iran in that worthy
endeavor! Iran hates al Qaeda (and the Taliban)
much more than we do, even. And they can get
Syria's help as well. But that would make sense, for
a change! Don't hold your breath.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

GEN. PETRAEUS AND THE WAR IDOLATRY

Is the good general reliable? Absolutely! And fully
predictable, as well. As we look forward to his much
awaited September report, Paul Krugman (NY Times)
reminds us of a previous September report by the
good general, that one in 2004. Of it, Krugman wrote:
"After all, it puts to rest any idea that the general stands
above politics: I don't think it's standard practice for
serving military officers to publish pieces that are
strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before
a national election."

Well, he'll do it again this September, Paul. You can
take that to the bank! In that election eve September
Petraeus wrote that "Iraqi leaders are stepping for-
ward, leading their country and their security forces
courageously." And those security forces were coming
along well. Their leaders "are displaying courage and
resilience . . . and "momentum has gathered in recent
months." That was three years ago, and the general
earned another star in the interim, and an enlarged
command.

The president tells the general what he wants to hear
from him, and the general gives the president the
happy talk he has asked for. The president wants us to
know that he listens to his generals, and his generals still
listen to him. Krugman added: "In other words, Gen.
Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed
the totally misleading impression, highly convenient
for his political masters, that victory was just around
the corner. And the best guess has to be that he'll do
the same thing three years later."

Let me hasten to add that I am not in any way doubting
Gen. Petraeus' integrity, ability, patriotism, or veracity.
He's a true believer, like the Prez. He doesn't question
what he's doing, or why. He is a brave man, and I admire
him and appreciate greatly his service to the country. I
believe we are wasting his considerable talents along with
the lives of his men (and women) on a lost cause. It's a
kind of idolatry: human sacrifices offered up to Moloch, the
god of war.

But the war is lost, and the sacrifices futile. Let me be
clear: the war is not and cannot be lost militarily. It
can continue the way it is ad infinitum for as long as
we are willing to pay the costs. And there will be
"progress" from time to time. (Although the number of
unidentified bodies -- usually the victims of Shiite
death squads -- has risen in May and June to pre-
surge levels.) The enemy will not run out of people,
resources or resolve. That's a given. Gen. Petraeus has
said repeatedly, as have the generals before him, that a
military solution is not possible.

What is lost is the political battle for a stable representative
government. That's not in the cards in the forseeable future
for a number of reasons. Peter Galbraith writes clearly and
persuasively of these reasons in The New York Review of
Books for Aug. 16, 2007. I hope all of you will read his article,
entitled: "Iraq: The Way to Go." Here is an excerpt from
that article:

"Abdul Aziz al-Hakim leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi
Council (SCIIC, previously known as SCIRI), which is Iraq's
leading Shiite party and a critical component of Prime
Minister al-Maliki's coalition. He is the sole survivor of
eight brothers. During Saddam's rule Baathists executed
six of them. On August 29, 2003, a suicide bomber,
possible linked to the Baathists, blew up his surviving
brother, and predecessor as SCIRI leader, at the shrine of
Ali in Najaf. Moqtada al-Sadr, Hakim's main rival, comes
from Iraq's other prominent Shiite religious family.
Saddam's Baath regime murdered his father and two
brothers in 1999. Earlier, in April 1980, the regime had
arrested Moqtada's father-in-law and the father-in-law's
sister --- the Grand Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Bint al-Huda.
While the ayatollah watched, the Baath securitymen raped
and killed his sister. They then set fire to his beard before
driving nails into his head. De-baathification is an
intensely personal issue for Iraq's two most powerful
Shiite political leaders, as it is to hundreds of thousands
of their followers who suffered similar atrocities."

De-baathification is not even politically possible for
the al-Maliki government right now, or anytime soon.
It's not going to happen! But until it does, nothing
else meaningful will happen so far as a "united"
government is concerned. The large Shia majority
is determined to finally rule, and most of them want
an Islamic government allied with Iran. The proud
Sunni Arab minority who have always ruled are just
as determined not to now be dominated by the
despised Shia. Fundamentalist Sunnis do not regard
the Shia as legitimate Muslims, even! Al Qaeda in
Iraq (and everywhere else) regard all Shia as
apostates, and are to be killed on sight. (Which means,
by the way, that al Qaeda is never going to have a
"safe haven" in Iraq, whether we are there or not. The
Iraqi army we are training and arming is 80% Shia, and
they hate al Qaeda as much as we do, and more. The
same goes for the Shia militias. Al Qaeda will be
permanently out of Iraq when we are! And they are
not "the same people who attacked us in America on
Sept. 11" as the president keeps falsely claiming. As
Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post:
"Those who planned and executed the Sept. 11 attacks
are either dead, in U. S. custody or holed up in Pakistan.
They are nowhere near Iraq.")

And do it goes: look for lots of happy talk in September.
With tales of progress you can't believe (and shouldn't.)
We'll see plenty of light at the end of tunnel, and so on.
The bloody war god wants still more human sacrifice!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

MUSLIM ANGER AND VIEWS

Some 80% of our population identify themselves
as "Christian." Basic to that religion (as it is to
Judaism also) is the command "to love your neighbor
as yourself." It seems clear that that would involve
several things, at least: 1) walk a mile in his moccasins.
2) loving means listening and learning: how can it be
otherwise? 3) continually seek understanding,
reconciliation, and restoration of fellowship.

Moderate Muslims (still by far the vast majority in
the Muslim world (MW) are gradually becoming ever
more convinced that Osama may be right in his
claims that the West, led by the U. S. and Israel, are
out to destroy Islam. To us that sounds preposterous,
like the ravings of a mad man. But how else is the MW
to understand the continuing destruction of the
Palestinians, their culture, and livelihoods, by the
Israelis, with our help?

We have given Israel over $100 billion in the last
50 years. (If you doubt that, google "U. S. aid to
Israel." That's what I did.) With it, Israel continues
its ruthless occupation and systematic destruction.
(Over 10,000 homes destroyed in the West Bank,
and more than 100,000 olive and citrus trees chain-
sawed or bulldozed. See what can be accomplished
with your tax dollars!?) By the way, in the eyes of
the MW, we are joined at the hip with Israel. What
they do, we are doing.)

Anyway, we are wreaking similar destruction in Iraq.
We are well along in destroying its economy, culture
and infra-structure. Its educated middle class has
been mostly killed or fled. The MW world sees this
every night on al Jazeera. We see very little of it
here, particularly the extent of and damage from
aerial bombardment. Fallujah, once Iraq's third
largest city has been 60% destroyed, mostly from
the air.

Our removal of Saddam unleashed a savage civil
war (still largely denied by our admin.) with no end
in sight. Saddam, we were told, was aiding and
abetting terrorists. And of course he was: he was
helping both Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom
originated in Israel's oppression and suppression
of the Palestinians. That was the extent of his
involvement with terrorism.

Saudi Arabia was also helping those same terror
organizations, but we weren't bent on attacking
them, we were enabling them by buying their oil!
There was zero chance Saddam was aligned with
al Qaeda in any way (as was falsely claimed by the
U. S.) He was bitterly hated by bin Laden, who
called him an apostate. By bin Laden's twisted
understanding of Islam, he not only was forbidden
to have dealings with an apostate, he was to kill
him, if he could!

Yes sports fans, we are now in a world-wide
struggle with terrorism that had its origins in the
U. S. backed Israeli destruction of Palestine.
There is very little left to or for the Palestinians,
as Jimmy Carter eloquently and accurately
reports in his book on apartheid there. We
removed Saddam because he had WMD, and was
a threat to Israel, and was helping terrorists there.
We are now preparing to attack Iran for the same
reasons: it's a threat to Israel, seeking nukes, and
aiding Hamas and Hezbollah! It's ironic, because
Saddam and Iran were such bitter enemies, and
both must be destroyed for the same reasons:
to protect Israel!

The Muslim world says (rightly) this is insane!
Why don't we just get Israel to withdraw its
150,000 soldiers and 200+ illegal settlements
from the West Bank, as Israel has over and over
agreed to do, and as the majority of their people
say they want to do? This is what Jimmy Carter
(a real Christian, by the way) is advocating, also.

Muslims all over the world oppose terrorism,
and trace it's fundamental cause among them to
Palestine. Hezbellah pioneered the use of suicide
bombers in Lebanon in attacks against U. S.,
Israeli, and civilian personnel. A Hezbollah
terrorist drove a pick up truck loaded with
explosives into the U. S. Marine barracks in
Beirut, killing more than 400 Marines. This was
over 20 years ago. Now it's happening in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the
world.

King Abdullah of Jordan says the main cause
and core of Muslim terrorism is the Israel/
Palestine conflict. (Gen. Musharff in Pakistan
has said the same thing.) He (the King) says
further that it will be extremely difficult to deal
effectively with terrorism until this main cause
is settled justly and fairly. Here is the King,
speaking for himself and hispeople:
"Yet we do not act in a vacuum. Our
country, our region, and the world, are all
affected by the prospects for peace. One
critical step is to insure zero tolerance
towards those who promote extremism.
Jordan has worked with the international
Muslim community to oppose extremist
interpretations of Islam. Jordan wants true,
moderate, traditional Islam to replace
fundamentalist, radical and militant Islam,
everywhere in the world, for every single
Muslim. In November of 2004 we issued
the Amman Message, which sought to
clarify the true nature of Islam -- what it
is, and what it is not. Then, last July, over
180 scholars met in Amman. They
represented 45 countries, and were
supported by fatwas from 17 of the world's
greatest Islamic scholars. Together, they
achieved, for the first time in history, a
unanimous consensus on a number of
critical issues: First, the declaration
recognized the legitimacy and common
principles of all eight of the traditional
schools of Islamic religious law. Second,
it defined the necessary qualifications and
conditions for issuing fatwas. This exposes
the illegitimacy of the extremist fatwas
justifying terrorism, which contravene the
traditional schools of Islamic religious law
and are in clear violation of Islam's core
principles. Third, the declaration
condemned the practice known as 'takfir'
(calling others apostates) -- a practice that
is used by extremists to justify violence
against those who do not agree with them."

That will do it for today. I'd be interested in
hearing from you. If you want more info on
the Israeli occupation, see Tanya Reinhart:
Israel/Palestine. She was a prof. at Tel Aviv
Univ. and columnist for Israel's biggest paper.
(She is recently deceased.) You can get the book
on Amazon, in paper back.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

ASK THE IRAQIS, THEN LISTEN TO
WHAT THEY SAY

Nicholas Kristof, in The New York Times:
"First, a poll this spring of Iraqis -- who
know their country much better than we do --
shows that only 21% think that the U. S.
troop presence improves security in Iraq,
while 69% think it is making security worse. . .
We simply can't want to be in Iraq more than
the Iraqis want us to be there. That poll of
Iraqis, conducted by the BBC and other news
organizations, found that only 22% of Iraqis
support the presence of coalition troops in
Iraq, down from 32% in 2005. . . .when
Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying
that we are making things worse, then it's
remarkably presumptious to overrule their
wishes and stay indefinitely because, as
President Bush termed it in his speech on
Tuesday, 'it is necessary work.'"

Tom Friedman, also of the Times:
"Obviously, Pres. Bush's stay-the-course
approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of
producing any self-sustaining -- and that is the
metric -- unified, stable Iraq. But the various
gradual, partial withdrawal proposals by many
Democrats and dissident Republicans are not
realistic either. The passions that have been
unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate
some partial withdrawal plan, where we just
draw down troops, do less patrolling, more
training and fight al Qaeda types. It's a fantasy.
. . . Staying in means simply containing the Iraqi
civil war, but at the price of Americans and Iraqis
continuing to die, and at the price of the U. S.
having no real leverage on the parties inside or
outside of Iraq to negotiate a settlement, because
everyone knows we're staying so they can
dither. Today, U. S. soldiers are making the
maximum sacrifice so Iraqi (and U. S.) politicians
can hold to their maximum positions.
(Parenthetical comment mine). Getting out, on
the other hand, means more ethnic, religious and
tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the
most morally ugly scenes you can imagine. . . ."

Friedman may or may not be right about the
horrific consequences of our departure. As I
recall, he was one of the boosters for the Iraq
fiasco at its outset, expecting a cake-walk.
Perhaps the Iraqi majority, who want us gone,
have also thought about these consequences
and have a different expectation.

Friedman continues: ". . . getting out has at least
four advantages. First, no more Americans will
be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second,
the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare
to leave, may be the last best hope for getting
the Iraqis to reach an 11th-hour political
agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays
out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of
communities on the ground that may create a
more stable foundation upon which to build a
federal settlement. Fourth, we will restore our
deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be
able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and
we will be much freer to hit Iran -- should we
ever need to -- once we're out. Moreover,
Iran will by default inherit management of the
mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an
enormous problem for Tehran."

Both Friedman and Kristof make a lot of sense.
Let's hope the people in power are listening!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

INSPIRING PROGRESS

Since the surge was announced by Mr. Bush, 600
of our troops have died, and 3,000 injured. The
surge was to gain space for a political solution,
and that is not happening. One third of Iraq's
cabinet is boycotting the government, and
parliament is taking August off, without seeking
to solve any of the substantial differences
dividing the nation.

The debate over the war is also becoming a
debate between those who believe in Bush and
share his beliefs about the war -- and those who
don't. "I believe we can succeed," said the Prez,
"and I believe we are making security progress
that will enable the political track to succeed as
well." Does he have any evidence on which to
base his beliefs? There have been some
encouraging developments in al Anbar, and a
decline in car bombings in Baghdad.

But supposing Gen. Petraeus is successful in
buying the Iraqi government some time: what
will they do with it? Will the Shia majority
ever willingly share power in a meaningful way
with Sunnis who have been mass-murdering
them and destroying their homes and holy
places for the last 40 years? That's the gist of
it, and it's not going to happen. We're kicking
a dead horse, and piling up dead G. I.s and
Iraqis for a fantasy. It's for Mr. Bush's light-
headed dream of a free, thriving, democratic
Iraq. We would all love that, of course!

The reality is: "The government is unable to
govern." This from CIA director Michael
Hayden, who added: "We have spent a lot of
time and treasure and energy creating a
government that is balanced and it cannot
function . . . the inability of the government
to govern seems irreversible." So there you
have it folks: the impossible dream!

We are now arming Sunnis to fight al Qaeda.
That means two things: 1) we can't handle
al Qaeda, or we wouldn't be arming both sides
in a civil war, and 2) We're insane! Both sides
in the civil war are also assaulting us regularly.

The President forgot to mention that the
longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al Qaeda
gets worldwide. We are helping al Qaeda
more by staying in Iraq than by leaving.
That makes us safer? Dream on!

In September 2004, Mr. B assured us that Iraq
"was making steady progress." In April, 2005:
"We're making good progress in Iraq." In Oct.,
2005: "Iraq has made incredible political
progress." In November 2005: "Iraqis are
making inspiring progress." Dream on! With
this kind of progress we can be there ten more
years.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

CONVERSATION ON ISLAM (CONT'D)


The conversation began with a letter I
wrote to the Albany (OR) Democrat-
Herald. That letter, and a response to
it, are reproduced along with my answer
to that response, in the two previous
blogs. I am only publishing excerpts
here, selecting letters that I answer in
the on-line comments in the paper.
For the full discussion, go to that site:
www.democratherald.com/articles/2007/06/24/news/opinion/1edi03_mailbag.txt

W. Nelson wrote on 6/25: "Dr. Goodwin, go
to the Quran and Hadiths the definitive works
of Islam and read them, rather than relying on
self-serving, peer-reviewed, academic nonsense.
The "people are trying to divide us and promote
hatred" line is a little worn out. What people
want is the truth, not academic spin. If you
read the Quran and Hadiths and then look at
the actions in the Middle East, Europe, Africa,
it starts to make a lot more sense. These people
whether active participants or passive
supporters are acting completely in accordance
with their faith. Regards."

My reply, also on 6/25: "Mr. Nelson: I always
appreciate your comments, as they are thought
provoking and well informed. Regarding the
hadiths in which you put so much stock, Resa
Aslan's No god but God tells us that over
700,000 of these "sayings of the Prophet"
popped up within a few years of his death.
Which, if any are real? That is a life-long
task for the experts, like Dr. Aslan, who reads
them in the original Arabic. The ones we
get in English are selected from the 700,000+
to support whatever point the selecter is
selling. Suicide bombers and murderers
of women and children are not acting in
accordance with mainstream Islam. (Is
that what you are arguing, that they are?)
Just ask any mainstream Muslim.
Nor does our use of cluster bombs on
civilians accord with mainstream Christianity.
The faith Mr. Bush is following is no more
the teachings of Jesus than is Osama bin
Laden true to the Muslim faith. Both
leaders are tragically misinformed about the
teachings of their respective religions.
That's why their actions are so terribly
destructive and deadly. "By their fruits
you shall know them," said both Jesus and
Muhammad. Regards."

Another response to the on-line site (above):
"To Dangerous Dave: Thanks for your comments.
In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam,
an excellent book by John L. Esposito, who is a
professor of world religions at Georgetown Univ.
in D. C., we find: 'historically, while the early
expansion and conquests spread Islamic rule,
Muslims did not try to impose their religion on
others, or force them to convert. As "People of
the Book" Jews and Christians were regarded as
protected people (dhimmi) who were permitted
to retain and practice their religions, be led by
their own religious leaders, and be guided by
their own religious laws and customs. For this
protection, they paid a poll or head tax (jizya).'
(This was in lieu of the heavy contributions
required of Muslims (alms) for the relief of
widows and orphans and the disabled. It was
a fair and resonable share of the costs of civic
government. No one would expect them to
ride free without paying any taxes!) This has
been demonized by some critics of Islam as
"oppressive." The "protection" was from civic
violence and in case of war (both of which
happened frequently). As to what living
together "harmoniously" means, I refer you
to the new book Peace Be Upon You that I
have described elsewhere. See particularly
his chapter on present-day Dubai, where
wealthy Jews, Christians, and Arabs live
together in peace and make lots of money
in joint business partnerships.
Regards."

The above brings us up to date so far!
More later, I' sure.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

ISLAM DEBATE (Cont'd)

In the last blog, I reprinted a letter I wrote
to the local paper. It spoke of the variety
of opinions and teachings within Islam,
and the important difference between
mainstream thinking and that of the
extremists. Below is an answer to my letter,
and my response to that and others like it:

"A deeper examination of the Quran, its
history and the concept of abrogation
reveals that the "lovey, huggy" portions
of the Quran were written while Mohammad
lived in Mecca and was advocating peace,
cooperation, and mutual respect to get the
people of Mecca to turn away from poly-
theism and idol-worship. He even hoped to
get Jews and Christians to help him in this
effort. After his flight to Medina however,
the writings of the Quran take on a decidedly
different tone toward Christians, Jews, and
other non-believers. Islamic eschatology
also offers a glimpse of what the final
disposition of Jews and Christians will be.
I encourage you to look into it. Oh, and by
the way trying to deny that Islam spread, in
large part, by the sword is just pure bunk
that ignores well established facts of history."

Well, the "deeper examination of the Quran"
that the writer calls for has been done by
Resa Aslan (referred to in the last blog),
and John L. Esposito, who teaches world
religions at Georgetown Univ., and many
other widely recognized scholars of note.
My own field of professional study is world
religions, which I have taught at the univ.
level for over thirty years. So I have some
background with which to evaluate the
various writings on Islam and the Quran.

Here is my response the above: "you can
find anything you want in the Bible or the
Quran, depending on how you want to "spin"
it. Critics of Islam, such as Robert Spencer
(one of the fave "authorities" for the anti-Islam
crowd) have a field day taking disputed
passages out of historical context and riding
off on their hobby horses. Mohammad
complicated things for us by mixing local
and specific directions for day to day issues
with general principles for all time. We are
free to mix them as we wish. Polemicists
like to take the harshest statements of
fanatics and imply or suggest that those
are representative or standard for main-
stream Islam. If you want the truth, rely
on genuine scholars who have made the
study of Islam their life work, and are
recognized by Muslims, Christians, and
Jews alike. They won't have an axe to
grind. (Definition of a fanatic: someone
willing to kill you over your religion. They
are raving fools. Nothing they say should
be credited when it comes to religious
authority. HELLO! You can't use them
as authorities on mainstream Islam. That's
hogwash!)

Now, did the Arabs conquer the Middle
East, N. Africa and most of Spain? Yes
they did. Was it to make converts? No, it
was for land and booty and plunder, just
like other armies of the time. Not only did
they not seek converts, they had no
interest in making converts, and some times
discouraged seekers who wanted to convert.
Spain, under Muslim rule, saw a golden age
of philosophical and religious discussion
among leading scholars of all three faiths. A
new book just out that covers such relations
from the time of Muhammad to the present is
Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim,
Christian and Jewish Coexistence, by
Zachary Karabell. It is a masterpiece of
scholarship, but reads like a newspaper. It
will become the definitive work on this
subject. The author is an internationally
recognized authority, with a Harvard Ph. D.
in his subject. He writes: "For a millenium
and a half, until the end of WW II, Jews
under Muslim rule enjoyed more safety,
freedom, and autonomy than they ever did
under Christian rule. Muslim states over
the course of fourteen centuries have
allowed for religious diversity and not
insisted on trying to convert those who
followed a different creed . . . The Quran
instructed Muslims to respect the People
of the Book (Jews and Christians), and
that is precisely what they did. The early
history of Islam, therefore, unfolded
against the backdrop of toleration for the
religions of the conquered." (pp.28,29)

That's what real history shows! I know
you are being fed contrary nonsense by
folks with an agenda. The vast majority
of Muslims want peace, as do most Jews
and Christians. If we can ever join hands
to promote understanding and brotherhood,
as all of our religions require that we do,
we'll solve the world's problems without
war. That is not necessarily what everyone
wants, it seems!

The Pope who mounted the first Crusade
also started the lie that Islam was spread
by the sword. That lie has been repeated
so much for so long that anyone who doubts
it is seen as a nut. That's how "pure bunk"
becomes "an established fact of history"
that everyone "knows." Like Saddam was
in on 9/11!

Have some Muslims at various times
disobeyed the Quran and misused their
power in regard to Christians and Jews?
Undoubtedly. Do they seek to justify it
from the Quran? Absolutely! Have
Christians ever done that to captive
peoples? And justified it from the Bible?
Is the Pope Catholic? There's lots of dirty
linen in everyone's closet, if you're looking
for dirt. Let's be looking for the light!

To be continued. Feel free to comment.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

ISLAM DEBATE

Any time you speak well of Muslims or
their religion, you'll get a contrary
response from people who think you are
naive or misinformed. They are quick to
point out bad things said and done by
Muslims, and claim these evils are typical
and representative of Muslims as a whole.
These folks are confusing Muslim extremists
(who often advocate violence) with main-
stream Islam, which has a long history of
peaceful relations with non-Muslims.

Through letters to the editor of the local
paper, the Albany (OR) Democrat-Herald,
I have been urging more understanding and
friendship between Muslims and the rest of
us, and getting the predictable flak in response.
I am reproducing some of that here, along
with my answers. The full discussions are
available on line at: www.democratherald.com/
articles/2007/06/24/news/opinion/1edi03_
mailbag.txt

First, my letter that started the controversy:
It's dated 6/18/07, and titled "Why Believe the
Nuts?" It reads thusly:

All religions have their extremists. Was Rev.
Falwell speaking for all Christians when he
attributed 9/11 to our tolerance of gays? Or
when he called Bishop Tutu a "phony?"
Falwell did not represent main-stream
Christianity. Bishop Tutu does.

The Ayatollahs, like Falwell, represent a
fringe, not mainstream Islam. They are only
found in the Shia sect, who make up 10-15%
of the 1.4 billion Muslims. The rest are Sunni,
and constitute the mainstream. Most of them
do not even recognize the Shia as true Muslims.
(The Sunnis also have extremist sects like the
Wahabbis, that are out of the mainstream,
and do not speak for it. Osama bin Laden is a
Wahabbi.)
Reading and understanding the Quran in its
historical setting is prerequisite to discussing
its teachings. In it you will discover that "there
is no compulsion in religion." That's a direct
quote. It's unequivical, and was followed
strictly by Muhammad and his early followers
(in spite of what you may have been told).

The myth of Muhammad spreading Islam
with the sword was concocted by the Pope
promoting the first Crusade. The term
"infidel" is Latin, by the way, and came from
the Crusaders and was ascribed to Muslims.
Mainstream Muslims do not use that term
to refer to Christians or Jews who are
practicing their religion (living by its precepts
in regard to their neighbors). They are called
"People of the Book," and treated with respect.

Before the Crusades, Muslims, Jews, and
Christians lived harmoniously in Egypt,
Lebanon, the Holy Land, Iraq and Spain.
When the Catholic Church got control of
the latter, it initiated the Inquisition and
forced Muslims and Jews to either convert
or leave. Those that refused or were
suspected of pretending to convert were
often tortured or barbecued alive. When
the Conqistadores arrived in the New World,
they forced mass conversions of the natives,
and killed or enslaved thousands in the
process. The spread of Christianity in sub-
Sahara Africa was also a result of military
conquest and in the interest of colonialism
by Europeans. If we are going to look at
history, let's look at all of it, shall we?

You won't get the full story of Islam from
it's enemies and critics. Would you consult
Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens on
Christianity? (Both are popular atheists.)
For an honest, warts-and-all history and
explanation of what mainstream Islam
really teaches, see No god but God, by Resa
Aslan. He is an American Muslim born in
Iran, and a professor of world religions,
fluent in Arabic, and expert in Judaism
and Christianity, as well as Islam. His
work is a masterpiece of scholarship and
clear writing that is widely hailed as
authoritative by Muslims and Christians
alike. It will undoubtedly become the
standard in English on Islam. You can
get it from Amazon for under $8.00. I
urge you to do it.

More on this later!

jgoodwin004@centuryTel.net