Jordan actually has a Law Of Return which has applied to all “Palestinian Arabs” — that is Arabs from the land of Palestine, a.k.a. Transjordan, on both sides of the River Jordan — since 1954.

In 1970 King Hussein proposed a plan to resettle all of the displaced western Palestinians in the portion of Palestine that had been parcelled off as Jordan in 1946. This would have meant full citizenship in Jordan, a libertarian, inclusive, secular, highly civilized country, offering state healthcare, education, the works — in short, it was a better offer than anything achievable by war with Israel in their wildest dreams. King Hussein considered the Palestinians his people and his responsibility.

But this would have meant the end of Yassir Arafat’s political ambitions: he needed his people dispossessed and angry, not settled and getting on with life. So Arafat redefined Palestine in the popular mind to mean only the land west of the river Jordan, and responded to Hussein’s offer with the Black September “commando” uprising, forcing Hussein to send the Jordanian army against the Palestinians and kick them out.

Jordan’s Law Of Return is still in force, but naturally such repatriation of Palestinians in their own Arab-ruled country would require submission to Jordan as the sovereign state. There would be absolutely no role for Hamas to play.

Terrorism is precisely calculated to make us overreact: to change foreign policies; to pass secret detention laws; to shoot commuters in the head for running to catch the train; to invite a pioneer in the use of schoolchildren as human shields to address the UN while wearing a gun on his hip; to delude decent people into thinking that one particular displaced nation is more important than all the other displaced nations fighting for survival today, most of whom do not blow up innocents, and many of whom are even worse off and have nowhere else to go; to effectively outlaw suspects and witnesses in certain investigations; to turture prisoners taken in war.

So I agree with your sense of self preservation but the best advice for surviving in the terrorist age is still: drive carefully and not after drinking.

James Mac, I get your sentiment but if someone shoves a gun in my face or threatens my children with harm they will have my full attention and I am really likely to give them whatever it is they want if they promise not to take that next step. Their religion and my philosophical positions won’t come into it. If we don’t engage in a genuine effort to resolve their grievance, what will they then do to get our attention.

Gary, sorry mate but that’s just nuts

Another feature of N.D.E’s is that upon death..ie..separation from the body, that we undergo a life review….a type of judgement. The life review can be as simple as watching a millisecond re-run of every event in your life on a monitor or a screen.

In this the subjects are accompanied by guides who lovingly assist and pass comments how they could have done something different and better in a given situation…they get to see and feel the hurt they may have caused someone by their actions or their words….all this in an environment of care, correction, love and great compassion.

They also reveal that all the things they did down here on earth that they thought were monumental and worthy of great repute, did n’t even crack a mention in their Life Reviews…but the smaller things that they had almost forgotten, recieved great commendation..ie…one lady reported that an incident in her early life when she was shopping at a super-market and she just happened to glance at a young pregnant girl and simply gave her a reasurring smile..this seemingly insignificant act down here on earth, recieved the greatest accolades in the After-Realms.

Oils aint Oils Sol!!

Does he? That’s the traditional interpretation of the “unquenchable fire” for those not given “eternal life”. But that was a bit of a creative conceit by a mediaval church going through a tyrannical phase.

A fresh reading of all those biblical references to fire and hell leads to a less sadistic picture of a destructive fire in which those who do not choose eternal life are simply snuffed out. See http://www.helltruth.com/q-a/their-worm-dieth-not.aspx

Calling names now?

My point is that religion is not an excuse for the actions of men. I refer to the prophet as he is the basis of the religion. I was trying to show that his vision has been abused by the people who followed.

The part of the speech that relates to the punishment for murder as an example that it is not morally sanctioned violence. Perhaps you cannot see the same. I believe that is because we are different people not because you are dense.

“God himself, according to these religions, condemns unbelievers and anyone who breaks his unilaterly impose rules to DEATH and ETERNAL TORMENT. So why is it such a surprise that his loyal disciples follow his example?”

I dont know where this came from it is presented as fact but I fear is opinion. Perhaps you could provide evidence, perhaps.

I may not have been clear enough , I dont consider Islam non-violent but not entirely violent. I believe all religions are good and bad, the impression I am getting from you is that they are all bad. I disagree and will argue the point with evidence and without name calling.

My point related to you altering my statement

“As for those who have bought the Islam is violent theory I would refer you to the farewell speech of the Prophet instead of the rantings of people with their own agendas”

to become

“This is what you cite as evidence of the goodness of religion??”

you altered violence to good. misrepresenting my point.

Once again I say blame the follower not the religion. Let each person take responsibility for their own actions.

Once again I ask if Obama was number one son instead of number nineteen would he be a terrorist or an industrialist? I really look forward to you opinion on that one.

Apologies for the Islam hater crack, it was a cheap shot that does my arguements no favours.

Apologies to the followers if I have not addreessed your figures correctly as it is out of ignorance and not hate.

An explanation for my calling god a man, I try not to but if a lady said god was a woman I would not disagree. In fact if the esteemed first dog said god was a canine I wouldn’t have a problem with that either.

I dont know if you are a follower of science but if you are perhaps you could ask yourself how many tertiary institutions have something to do with religion, either now or at some point in their history, was this due to the violent nature of religion or the search for meaning?

As for your call for Mother Teresa to apologise for being publicity for religion I must ask how full of hate are you?

Looking forward to you next missive.

All the best

I’m not an Islam hater. I consider all religions equally worthy of contempt.

“I didn’t refer to it as evidence of a good religion but evidence that Islam is not a violent religion.”

You cited, as evidence that Islam is not violent now, a passage in which, 1500 years ago, their leader sanctioned beating women. The fact that other people allegedly treated women even worse than he did is hardly to the point.

” But hey why argue the facts when you can make it up, eh?”

I don’t need to. The religious apologists are doing just fine on that front all on their own.

You cited the passage in response to what you called “the Islam is violent theory”. (That’s, Islam IS violent - not, WAS violent several hundred years ago.) The fact that the revered p**dophile was allegedly ahead of his time in the 6th century does nothing to assist your case in proving that 21st century Islam is not violent now.

On the contrary, my point, which you have still failed to address, is that the BASIC PREMISE of Islam, and the other Abrahmic religions, is MORALLY SANCTIONED VIOLENCE. God himself, according to these religions, condemns unbelievers and anyone who breaks his unilaterly impose rules to DEATH and ETERNAL TORMENT. So why is it such a surprise that his loyal disciples follow his example?

But I think your other point is more solid, about religious belief being a necessary condition (but not sufficient) for some acts of evil while being neither necessary nor sufficient for acts of good.

Mr Yusuf’s argument that terrorism can’t be a Muslim thing because not all Muslims are terrorists, is garbage. His logic seems to be as follows: being Muslim is not a sufficient condition for being a terrorist (clearly true), therefore any link is only a coincidence. The conclusion doesn’t follow, it’s sophist drivel.

But religion is also probably a constant in human society. Atheism wasn’t invented in the Enlightenment, it was just outed. The Soviet Union’s attempt to ban it (in contravention of their own constitution) was one of the achilles’ heels that brought them down in the end.

Also I think (though I’m not much of a historian) that the reform of the Catholic church from a tyranny to a relatively decent body was brought on by a breakaway religious movement, the Lutherans. Not the Enlightenment. That argues for good religion being an effective tool — maybe the only effective tool — against bad religion.

So the good things done by religious people could’ve been done by anybody but the evil done in the name of religion needed religion to be done?

You despair

I linked to the whole speech so it could be taken in context as a whole. I took the section on the treatment of women to, once again in context, of a man talking to a group that had previously given women no rights whatsoever and had treated them as possessions.

You despair but bring no point so to assist I will go through with the interpretation I have of the speech

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours.

(you are equal)

They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm.

( i would think this has to do with adultery and divorce if a woman cheats on you youy can kick her out of your house but cannot injure her)

But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly.

(forgiveness)

The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah.

(I think this is what may have offended you, you didn’t say. My little understanding of the time is that women’s independance was about 1200 years away and women of the age and area, if not connected to a tribe were alone and targets for thieves, robbers and such. I can put up with the “captives” and the “unable to manage for themselves” as I know it was not said in relation to the independant women of today. Then again I’m not a woman.)

Nice to see the Islam haters always ready to cherrry pick their arguement. I didn’t refer to it as evidence of a good religion but evidence that Islam is not a violent religion. But hey why argue the facts when you can make it up, eh?

As I understand it and am ready to be corrected, the prophet before his enlightenment was what we would know as a kept man. His wife was a powerful merchant and he a member of her court. After his enlightenment the role of women was improved. As I said I am more than willing to be corrected on this.

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah.

I despair.

Here’s the difference Heathdon. Every charitable action done by religionist can be done - and is already being done - by secular charities, athiests and those with no religious belief or affiliation. Religion adds nothing except more religion. Those who give food, water & a bible are no better (and arguably worse, given the contents of the book) than than those who just give food & water.

There are “good” religious people, but religion itself adds nothing to doing good.

However, religion adds a vital element to doing evil. Without religion, it is still possible to do evil, but only religion makes evil morally justifiable. If you believe that you are chosen of God, and immortal, and that God has already determined that your victim will suffer eternal torment, it makes perfect sense to become a suicide bomber. If you believe that god hates fags, it makes perfect sense to gay bash. If you believe that god thinks women are inferior, it makes perfect sense to discriminate.

And yes, since you ask, I do call for the salvos, vinnies & mother teresa to apologise - not for their good works, but for the poisonous brainwashing they add to the mix.

We’ve heard this all before: “I completely condemn terrorism, but …”. Guess what? A suicide bomber could die happy hearing those words. You are all rewarding the terrorist communication method by even discussing the interpretation of their message.

Here’s some interpretation for you: People who blow other people up are not trying to be loved or to have their methods approved of. They are trying to get journalists to say: “I deplore terrorism, but it’s a symptom of a deeper cause we have to address.” Which Mr Yusuf has just paraphrased.

Am I a “fringe fundamentalist” if I say: “I do not know or care what you want; I will start listening when you stop throwing bombs at innocents.”

The worst part of this approach is it doesn’t stop the violence.

SBH I agree I dont blame the religion I blame the people who commit the evil. They may use religion in order to gather followers and publicity.

Zebras Calling people you disagree with names does you or your point of view no favours. I dont need to apologise for religion because religion like all systems are only as good as the humans running them. Do you expect anybody to apologise for the salvation army, st vincent de paul, mother teresa and the many other charities that exist and do good work because of religion. Or do you give credit to people and blame religion?

If Osama was number 1 son instead of number 19 would he be a terrorist or an industrialist?

As to the article I believe it might be interesting to relate the terrorist acts and the conditions in the countries of origin of the terrorists. One man’s terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

I believe the reason the Islamic blaming terrorists are popular is because they are against US troops in Saudi Arabia. I believe these troops have a dispensation to drink alcohol and if this is so then I would liken this to opening a pub in the manger in Bethlehem. I could see how this would upset people.

As for those who have bought the Islam is violent theory I would refer you to the farewell speech of the Prophet instead of the rantings of people with their own agendas

http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/07/05/the-farewell-address-of-the-holy-prophet-muhammad/

Thank you Irfan for addressing this subject. I always thiought the first terrorists were the Red Brigade and Baider Meinhoff who I dont think were part of a religion. I learned later that Hitler blamed terrorists for the Reichstag fire.

You miss the point - good people *by definition* do not wilfully commit evil. Good people who do commit evil acts have somehow been convinced that what they are doing is not evil. Religion provides a perfect mechanism for this. They cannot have “decided to be evil” if they don’t think what they are doing is evil. This is surely an uncontroversial and purely logical statement and only the irrational mind of the religious apologist could deny it.

AS to religion allowing good peopl to do evil well, nuts to that. When pople commit evil acts they have decided to be evil, just cause they kiss their children good night doesn’t stop them being evil.

And how would you define a “believer”? Would you include the Muslim victims of terrorism who seem to make up the vast majority of victims? Should they organise protests after they’ve been released from hospital just as the wounded and the families of 9/11 and 7/7 did? And like the noisy anti-terror marches organised by victims of the Bali bombings across Australian cities?

As for the Muslim v Christian nations, are you kidding???

Which planet do you live on?

Not that I’m in total disagreement with his argument, but it’s too simplistic. If the only thing necessary to justify killing civilians is a belief that it’s somehow defensible because other people are occupying the place one chooses to nominate as one’s homeland then those Jews who choose to believe in the “Promised Land” of their history have every right to kill Palestinian civilians who are in the way of their “reclaiming” it, Australian aborigines have every right to slaughter all the invading immigrants of whatever stripe who’ve arrived since 1788 and I have every right to bomb Muslims in the streets of Auburn because they’re now occupying what I choose to define as my “Christian homeland.”

Sorry, the homelands argument wouldn’t be allowed in any other context. Get back to the religion, and accept that it’s got some really nasty interpretations.