JCHFleetguy

The problem for the Lebanese government is that the effectively made Hezbollah the semi-official Army of Southern Lebanon - when the peace treaty that created the new government said that all armed militias were to be disarmed. Hezbollah fighters should have been inducted into the Lebanese Army under central government control if they wanted to pack weapons around and defend southern Lebanon from the Israelis. The same is true in Iraq. If the various militias are not disarmed, or inducted into the Iraqi military under central government control, then Iraq will never know peace and security. Factions like Hezbollah, and Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, must put primary allegiance not to their sect or political view - but to the national unity of their country. Otherwise, no truly unifed government will arise in either Lebanon or Iraq. Back to Lebanon: some outside force was going to have to push Hezbollah away from the Israeli border. This could either have been: the Lebanese army that had no will or abilitythe Israeli army which is the worst possible playerthe UN peacekeepers that have done squatthe upcoming multi-national force - which will hopefully do better than the UNThis still leaves the Lebanese government (as the Iraqis) with the task of removing armed militias from the zone of their control - or they will never truly have control.

Obviously, in the United States our understanding of the situation in Iraq comes from the source of our news: we can see the "light at the end of the tunnel" as the establishment of a stable government with security for its citizens - or a train with impending doom and chaos for all. So, I am looking for comments on this unidentified Iraqi womens take on the current situation in Iraq: and I would like comment on the rest of Sister Chittiser's article

Full PDF version here Text version here

All Things Conservative: Reform for Islam: And in an act sure to shorten his own life, he believes that the Qur'an blesses the existence of Israel: .He also quotes from: Lesson One for the modern Muslim: remember, this is not the 8th century

Salim, Amen brother. I think either result will be a victory for Iraq and will serve to help co-opt people to democratic over violent means. If a serious percentage of Iraqis (Sunni, Kurd, and Shia) vote in December for a parliment (interim or permanent) it will certainly be a massive step forward.

Salim, My initial reaction is that the referrendum will fail in October - and we will have elections for a new interim parliment (instead of a permanent one) in December. Then, the new Constitution committee will get to re-write this draft. Or do you think at least 34% of the population will accept the draft in in all but two of the provinces?

I think it is incredibly important that there is cross-cultural communication between east and west; and between the two largest religions on the planet. Hope this thread adds to that discussion. Is this the only one? No. Noah of the bible, Nuh in the Koran. Destruction? We have it in both, Sodom and Gomorrah with Lot in the Bible and Lut in the Koran. Violence, sex and lusting after virgins? Take your pick you will find it in both. Women? Obey those husbands...in both. The Bible contains laws that very few of us today would follow, I for one admit I often partake of the evil shrimp. I am a religious person, I am a Catholic. However I have taken the time to read not only several versions of the Bible but the Koran as well. If you are seeking violence you can find it in both the Bible and the Koran. If you are seeking love? Again it can be found in both. While the Koran includes more warnings concerning those who are Jews than the Bible contains regarding those who are unbelievers, anyone who has read both understands that is almost the same type of behavior Martin Luther exhibited. Muhummad wrote the Koran as a basis of the religion he was trying to form. Martin Luther took parts of the Bible he felt were appropriate and discarded what he disagreed with. The problem is not Islam or the Koran. The problem is the same problem we have had in our own history of Christianity. Those who selectively use small portions of a religious text to promote their extreme agenda. The main difference is Christianity is an older religion, back when the wars happened that Christianity was the factor wars were fought differently. There were no suicide bombers, there were no IED's, for most of these wars there were not even guns or bullets. The fact that one of the main tenants of the Koran which is it is not acceptable to kill other muslims demonstrates those that claim this is about religion are incorrect. Please don't take my word for it. Read the Koran, there are several online sources as well as print sources. Read the Bible as well, it doesn't matter which translation you prefer, there are several online sources for the Bible as well. Then make an educated decision for yourself. I used several sources to write this thread, I am including two here for those of you who desire to read more. Wikipedia: Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an Is the Holy Qur'an Copied from the Bible? I, as a Catholic am not proud of many moments in my religion's history. As I am sure many who follow the religion of Islam are not in agreement with some who are claiming Islam is the basis of their actions. This elicited some responses (all can be viewed at link above, where you can also participate if you like) some of which I will copy here (in my view they add to the debate):

Pride was the sin of Satan. Is the Garden in the Koran? Pride was the sin of Adam and Eve (ye shall be as Gods?) - the cause of the fall and our separation from God. I tend to have enough respect for folks of a different religion not to prostletize; but an apologist for Christianity I love is C.S. Lewis. You can read what he said here on "The Great Sin". The actions of the faith in general you mention are perhaps the worst corporate (group) sins - but I was talking about individual sin more than what we have done wrong as a religion. I might argue that the sin of "crusades, the spanish inquisition, and the conquistadors" was the Pride of Christianity in thinking that they could be as God and kill those unwilling to follow. Certainly God has that right - certainly we do not. I would view the primary cause of killing in God's name as Pride ("you shall be as God") in believing we could be spiritual judge, jury and executioner in God's place. The two greatest commandments in Christianity are "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all of your soul; and all of your might" (probably in the wrong order); and " Love your neighbor as yourself". Pride certainly blocks the second; and probably the first as well. All of the things you mention are certainly terrible sin. And I tend to be an "all sins are created equally terrible" kind of person - so I will not argue much over ranking. I am a non-denominational evangelical Christian in the United States.

Amen Brother!

Salim, There IS a right interpretation - God does have an opinion, and a plan, and we can have an opinion that reflects God's (at least in some degree). The problem is that we can never really KNOW whether our opinion is the right one; and we can never know ALL of what God thinks. The greatest sin in Christianity's view is Pride. It was the problem in the garden - Eve was convinced she could "be like God". It was Satan's sin - he too wished to assume God's throne. The difficulty for me is to try to understand God's scripture, and will, to the best of my power (while trying to put Him in charge of my understanding); and then when I think "I've got it" to put that into practice WITHOUT BECOMING SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND PRIDEFUL. So those who seek God's leading for their life try to understand that His will, and live it out; but cannot be so Prideful we think everyone else is simply wrong. It is a tough line to walk. And over the centuries, religious people, leaders, and movements have fallen off this line often. We are just human.

Moron_99 Peacocks strutting and beauty contest. Very good

If this is true (is it?) then there is no problem: The War is Over, and We Won

The MSM in the United States, by focusing only on car bombings and US troop deaths, have made any appearence of progress disappear. It is beginning to "look like Vietnam all over". Juan Butthead has said the insurgency has won - even breaks in the fighting are explained by the "normal ebb and flow of guerrilla warfare" Second, a majority American people believe the Bush administration, and President Bush, lied to the American people about the reasons to enter Iraq. Next, the years and years of anti-terrorist (and really anti-Arab) propaganda leave this feeling that these are hopeless century-old religious and political conflicts; and that Arabs would rather kill each other (and us) over them than have peace and democracy. Racism is a horrible thing. The Democratic Party hates President Bush and wants his failure; and while they would not say it - really does not want a good result to come out of his "bad actions" in Iraq - they will be happier if Iraq degenerates into open civil war and the US is forced to leave as in Lebanon and Somalia. They can make miles of political hay out of the midterm elections in 2006 and the Presidentals in 2008 if they can show we "destabilized" Iraq due to our aggressive actions. The Constitution must get written soon; and the elections occur in December; and the Sunni take part. Further, the Iraqi's should ask for control of all Iraqi prisoners (demand it from the US if need be to show independence and non-puppet status) from the US. It would help immensely if the Sunni would declare a cease-fire for their part while the constitutional process plays out. If it became obvious that the fighting was all by foreign jihadists that would be good. Obvious, and impossible to ignore, politcal progress is needed soon.

Salim, I think this is no religious group that has not been guilty of limiting others freedom if allowed.

Ok this is large but I cannot link something on my computer. Heres my outline of Jefferson: Whereas: 1) Almighty God has created the mind free; 2) that all attempts to influence it by earthly punishments or burdens: a ) tend only to cause habits of hypocrisy and malice, b ) are a departure from the plan of the God, who chose not to spread His plan by coercions on mind or body, as it was in his Almighty power to do; 3) that legislators and rulers (civil as well as clerical), in sinful presumption (being themselves but fallible and uninspired men):, a ) have assumed power over the faith of others, b ) set up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, c ) have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; 4 ) that to compel a man to furnish money for the spread of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; 5) that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own creed:, a ) is depriving him of the right of giving his aid to a particular teacher, i ) whose morals he would make his pattern, and ii )whose instruction he feels most influential to virtue, and b ) withdraws from his favored teacher the aid that would be an added stimulus to the teacher’s instruction of mankind; 6) that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; 7) that therefore making any citizen unable to assume public office unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him of those privileges and advantages to which he has a natural right; 8) that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors those who will externally profess and conform to it; 9) that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation [to falsely profess and conform], yet neither are those innocent who tempt them to do this; 10) that to allow the judge to impinge his powers into the field of opinion, and to control the profession or spread of principles on belief in their incorrectness, is a dangerous myth, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because: a ) the judge will make his opinions the rule, and b ) approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they agree or disagree with his own; 11) that it is time enough for the purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when those principles lead to overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, 12) that: a ) Truth is great and will prevail if left alone b ) Truth is the proper and ample opponent to error, and c ) Truth has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless humans remove truth’s natural weapons: free argument and debate, (since errors cease to be dangerous when they are freely contradicted):

Yes, but I am hesitant to mess with original text in case my "translation" change the meaning. Hate to be accused of leading the jury

Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom Obviously, I do not believe Iraqi's should copy American forms of government (esp those created in 1786); but I have found the discussion of questions on the relationship of the Iraqi government to Islam and other religions abstract. The political background is that the US was mainly populated by people escaping from Europe and the religious oppression by christian official religions in many countries. Jefferson was really a deist who wrote his own version of the Bible editing out the virgin birth, all the miracles, and the resurrection. The signers of the US Constitution represented about 10-15 christian sects. So I am curious what Iraqi's interested in this subject really think about Jefferson's thesis. This law was the basis of the US Constitution's Separation Clause for religion. Since its age makes it hard for me to read, if someone can do a decent translation into Arabic that would be great.

In response to Barbara Stock (idiot women) posted by Mustefser: We also have the example of Malcolm X: Islam and Christianity share huge amounts of agreement. You think Jesus born of virgin but not Son of God, and went to heaven without dying rather than being crucified and Risen. (I like Jesus talking as an infant telling them to leave His mom alone). I think Muhammad got that wrong. So what! We share a common belief in the God of Abraham; and a lot of traditions. I despise some of the secular messages given to my American 12 year old daughter; and can deeply understand the desire to not have THAT be the result of unity with the US and democracy in Iraq. It is nonsensical to me that Islam and Christianity - even while both exclusivist religions - cannot find a way to share our common philosophical bases. And it is the commonality of philosophical base that gives me hope that God can lead you to establish democracy in Iraq that works with Islam. And if you folks can find a way to democracy without abortion, pornography, and the secular denigration of faith as the basis of a person's life without resorting to theocracy then you have accomplished a huge thing.