Political Crossfire Forums

[Moracca]

Timmytour wrote: Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Moracca wrote: Centrist wrote: Is it solely the western perception of the ME/Islam that's faulty? Or do you feel like other Arab Muslims would question your heritage and faith?

Other Muslims would not question my place in the Ummah unless I converted to another religion. Of which they would still consider me a Muslim, but a misguided one. No Arab would ever question my heritage. Its impossible to change. You can't convert your ethnicity!

It just seems that in US feel that you can question Christianity or America and still be considered a Christian or American, but that if you are Muslim and question Islam you are not really a Muslim. I don't understand it.

:clap:

I think there also exists some confusion among some that being a Muslim automatically puts you in bed with Bin Laden.

You see some people looking for "Muslim leaders" to be more condemning as if there was absolute harmony and pure hierarchy in the Christian Church :shock:

Personally I think Christians should have more affinity with Moslems than with agnostics and athiests. After all, why should there be any "battle" about what faith people have, rather than if they have a faith?

Not that I advocate anything of the sort you understand. I think religion or non religion is a person´s freedom to choose. Perhaps a little electioneering sometimes doesn´t go amiss, but as long as it´s always within the framework of democracy :wink:

The problem is that in Sunni Islam it is specifically set up so that there is no high power or specific "leaders". In Shia it is different, much different. In Sunni Islam it is expected that prospective clerics attend religious training at approved ancient schools before having the ability to issue fatwahs. The problem is that the Salafists like Osama reject this and issue fatwahs on their own to their followers and the Ummah in general. In the eyes of most Muslims Osama is not authorized to issue a fatwah because he has not attended the proper religious training. However, with the increase of the instant media, the fact that the Salafists control the Hajj and also that the Saudi royals donate massive amounts of money to Salafist charities....the Salafists' power and influence is enormous. Most Sunni mosques in the US were build with funding from Salafist charities. Same goes for Europe. Anyway....no matter what we do outside of using the Salafists' religious views against them in battle or cutting off their funding....Salafism will grow and grow and grow. They are not like the West, they have many children.

I´ve always thought that the religion of Islam shied away from the kind of hierarchical nature of many Western organisations and thus thought it was a bit strange of people to ask the "muslim leaders" to stand up and be counted. In the Christian Church there is of course the Pope, Archbishops of various faiths and of course the blesssed Pat Robertson :lol: to whom the media know who to approach for comments. That kind of person to my mind doesn´t exist in the Islamic Faith, so to my mind people confuse the fact that they are not reading about "religious leaders" coming out against it with the fact they must condone it, not with the reality that the media has got no one to approach on the same basis!

I appreciate what you have posted. It is educational for the likes of me.

Perhaps I am wrong , but I sense in you a same frustration I have myself. That being that if Johnny Rotten got up, pronounced himself an archbishop and said because Jesus said we should love one another, it was the duty of every Christian to make love with every single person they met, whether of the same or opposite sex, you can imagine how much "respect" as a religious item that would gain.

To me, it doesn´t appear that Bin Laden´s done too much different. Yet I read so many posts that convey him to nevertheless have a religious authority within the Islamic faith.

In ways Islam has a "Pat Robertson" problem. Robertson isn't the head of any denomination of Christianity, he is the head of a coalition of people who think agree with his views and agenda. Osama is the same.

The problem in Islam as I see it is the lack of centralized power. The Salafists are really the only "power" that is centralized in Sunni Islam right now. So naturally Muslims disenchanted with their political leaders will turn somewhere. Salfists are also seen as very powerful. Muslims follow the powerful because they are seen to have Allah's blessing.

Our problem in the WoT is that we are talking to and negotiating with the political leaders who have no power over the Salafist movement. And the Salafists won't negotiate with us in merit, but they will play the game to appear to us to be reasonable. Its a mind game.

I understand your "Johnny Rotten" analogy and agree.

[Ozzone]

Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Of course. Being a Christian does not require you to accept Christian leadership or other Christians actions unconditionally. You are supposed to follow Christian leadership, but it's not an absolute, especially if the leader is being a bad leader.

FYI - the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not the leader of "Christians".

Quote: Is it okay for Americans to question the American leadership and the actions of other Americans and still be allowed to call themselves Americans?

Of course.

[LostSoul3412]

Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Yes.

Moracca wrote: Is it okay for Americans to question the American leadership and the actions of other Americans and still be allowed to call themselves Americans?

Yes.

[Timmytour]

Ozzone wrote: Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Of course. Being a Christian does not require you to accept Christian leadership or other Christians actions unconditionally. You are supposed to follow Christian leadership, but it's not an absolute, especially if the leader is being a bad leader.

FYI - the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not the leader of "Christians".



Ozzone, apologies in advance if I got this wrong, but I thought your comment about the Pope in the context comes across as extremely patronising.

I can´t recall seeing anywhere that Moracca ever insinuated that she ever thought this to be the case.

[Moracca]

Timmytour wrote: Ozzone wrote: Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Of course. Being a Christian does not require you to accept Christian leadership or other Christians actions unconditionally. You are supposed to follow Christian leadership, but it's not an absolute, especially if the leader is being a bad leader.

FYI - the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not the leader of "Christians".



Ozzone, apologies in advance if I got this wrong, but I thought your comment about the Pope in the context comes across as extremely patronising.

I can´t recall seeing anywhere that Moracca ever insinuated that she ever thought this to be the case.

I never mentioned the the Pope in this thread.

[Timmytour]

Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Ozzone wrote: Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Of course. Being a Christian does not require you to accept Christian leadership or other Christians actions unconditionally. You are supposed to follow Christian leadership, but it's not an absolute, especially if the leader is being a bad leader.

FYI - the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not the leader of "Christians".



Ozzone, apologies in advance if I got this wrong, but I thought your comment about the Pope in the context comes across as extremely patronising.

I can´t recall seeing anywhere that Moracca ever insinuated that she ever thought this to be the case.

I never mentioned the the Pope in this thread.

Moracca, I don´t think there may ever exist again a thread where we´ve been so much in agreement :wink:

[Centrist]

Timmytour wrote: Ozzone wrote: Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Of course. Being a Christian does not require you to accept Christian leadership or other Christians actions unconditionally. You are supposed to follow Christian leadership, but it's not an absolute, especially if the leader is being a bad leader.

FYI - the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not the leader of "Christians".



Ozzone, apologies in advance if I got this wrong, but I thought your comment about the Pope in the context comes across as extremely patronising.

I can´t recall seeing anywhere that Moracca ever insinuated that she ever thought this to be the case.

I think Oz's FYI was for example purposes. I don't think he meant it as a correction.

[Centrist]

Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Moracca wrote: Centrist wrote: Is it solely the western perception of the ME/Islam that's faulty? Or do you feel like other Arab Muslims would question your heritage and faith?

Other Muslims would not question my place in the Ummah unless I converted to another religion. Of which they would still consider me a Muslim, but a misguided one. No Arab would ever question my heritage. Its impossible to change. You can't convert your ethnicity!

It just seems that in US feel that you can question Christianity or America and still be considered a Christian or American, but that if you are Muslim and question Islam you are not really a Muslim. I don't understand it.

:clap:

I think there also exists some confusion among some that being a Muslim automatically puts you in bed with Bin Laden.

You see some people looking for "Muslim leaders" to be more condemning as if there was absolute harmony and pure hierarchy in the Christian Church :shock:

Personally I think Christians should have more affinity with Moslems than with agnostics and athiests. After all, why should there be any "battle" about what faith people have, rather than if they have a faith?

Not that I advocate anything of the sort you understand. I think religion or non religion is a person´s freedom to choose. Perhaps a little electioneering sometimes doesn´t go amiss, but as long as it´s always within the framework of democracy :wink:

The problem is that in Sunni Islam it is specifically set up so that there is no high power or specific "leaders". In Shia it is different, much different. In Sunni Islam it is expected that prospective clerics attend religious training at approved ancient schools before having the ability to issue fatwahs. The problem is that the Salafists like Osama reject this and issue fatwahs on their own to their followers and the Ummah in general. In the eyes of most Muslims Osama is not authorized to issue a fatwah because he has not attended the proper religious training. However, with the increase of the instant media, the fact that the Salafists control the Hajj and also that the Saudi royals donate massive amounts of money to Salafist charities....the Salafists' power and influence is enormous. Most Sunni mosques in the US were build with funding from Salafist charities. Same goes for Europe. Anyway....no matter what we do outside of using the Salafists' religious views against them in battle or cutting off their funding....Salafism will grow and grow and grow. They are not like the West, they have many children.

I´ve always thought that the religion of Islam shied away from the kind of hierarchical nature of many Western organisations and thus thought it was a bit strange of people to ask the "muslim leaders" to stand up and be counted. In the Christian Church there is of course the Pope, Archbishops of various faiths and of course the blesssed Pat Robertson :lol: to whom the media know who to approach for comments. That kind of person to my mind doesn´t exist in the Islamic Faith, so to my mind people confuse the fact that they are not reading about "religious leaders" coming out against it with the fact they must condone it, not with the reality that the media has got no one to approach on the same basis!

I appreciate what you have posted. It is educational for the likes of me.

Perhaps I am wrong , but I sense in you a same frustration I have myself. That being that if Johnny Rotten got up, pronounced himself an archbishop and said because Jesus said we should love one another, it was the duty of every Christian to make love with every single person they met, whether of the same or opposite sex, you can imagine how much "respect" as a religious item that would gain.

To me, it doesn´t appear that Bin Laden´s done too much different. Yet I read so many posts that convey him to nevertheless have a religious authority within the Islamic faith.

In ways Islam has a "Pat Robertson" problem. Robertson isn't the head of any denomination of Christianity, he is the head of a coalition of people who think agree with his views and agenda. Osama is the same.

The problem in Islam as I see it is the lack of centralized power. The Salafists are really the only "power" that is centralized in Sunni Islam right now. So naturally Muslims disenchanted with their political leaders will turn somewhere. Salfists are also seen as very powerful. Muslims follow the powerful because they are seen to have Allah's blessing.

Our problem in the WoT is that we are talking to and negotiating with the political leaders who have no power over the Salafist movement. And the Salafists won't negotiate with us in merit, but they will play the game to appear to us to be reasonable. Its a mind game.

I understand your "Johnny Rotten" analogy and agree.

Please allow me to give an outsider's view on that. First, I certainly don't question the validity of what you're saying. I happen to agree with the parts I have enough knowledge to agree with, and I accept your explanations of Islam (I couldn't argue it with you if I wanted to).

Now, I agree with the idea that Islam has a "Pat Robertson" problem (that's a brilliant analogy, by the way). For those of us without an insider's knowledge of the inner workings of Islam, though, we'd accept ANY leader that offered vocal and sincere condemnations (or support, if he/she had a more positive inclination). For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

[bob.appleyard]

Moracca wrote: Alright, thanks everyone!

Now, when I as a falling away Muslim question Muslim leaders or the actions of individual Muslims I can still call myself a falling away Muslim all day long.

As an ethnic Arab I can question Arab government leaders and the actions of individual Arabs.

I have been challenged a few times on my religious beliefs and ethnicity because I have had harsh words for Muslims and Arabs. Just because I am a falling away Muslim and an Arab ethnically does not mean that I have to fall in line with the opinions and actions of those Muslims and Arabs who do what I think is wrong.

You are perfectly entitled to those opinions, and you can identify with whatever or whomever you like. I came in late in the day, but you really didn't need to put up those questions to begin with. Whoever told you that, for questioning the actions of Muslims or Arabs, you were in some way not a Muslim or an Arab, was totally in the wrong.

[Timmytour]

Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

[Centrist]

Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

It's not that he's a convert. It's that he's one of the most famous people in the world, and is widely respected around the world. Although, that being said, there's something to looking to converts as they have knowledge and understanding of more than one side of an issue.

I couldn't begin to tell you what flavor of Islam Muhammed Ali follows.

Face it, there aren't THAT many widely known, much less widely respected, Muslims in the western world. I can't name a single Imam in the US, and I pay attention (at least a little bit). Islam's "bad guys" are much more famous here than Islam's good guys are.

[Moracca]

Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

Muhammad Ali is member of the Nation of Islam, which is neither Sunni or Shia. In fact, it is universally rejected in both Sunni and Shia Islam because they claim that Jesus (PBUH) and the Madhi are one in the same and came to Earth in the form of Wallace Fard Muhammad.

NOI members are more hated within Islam than anything because they are heretics. As are terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. "Infidels" are those who have heard of Islam, the Qu'ran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and do not become Muslims. Heretics are those who call themselves Muslims and yet deviate from the Word. This is why there is such a rift between Sunni and Shia. Each consider the other heretics. Worse than infidels.

[Moracca]

Centrist wrote: Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

It's not that he's a convert. It's that he's one of the most famous people in the world, and is widely respected around the world. Although, that being said, there's something to looking to converts as they have knowledge and understanding of more than one side of an issue.

I couldn't begin to tell you what flavor of Islam Muhammed Ali follows.

Face it, there aren't THAT many widely known, much less widely respected, Muslims in the western world. I can't name a single Imam in the US, and I pay attention (at least a little bit). Islam's "bad guys" are much more famous here than Islam's good guys are.

Muhammad Ali has already come out against terrorism. The Salafists don't care. He'd be one of the first they'd kill if they could.

Anyway....check out this site to see some Muslims who do care about the US:

www.muslimsforamerica.us

Its a group I am involved with here in southern California. Probably more coming up as I'm semi-non-mobile or whatever.

[Centrist]

Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

Muhammad Ali is member of the Nation of Islam, which is neither Sunni or Shia. In fact, it is universally rejected in both Sunni and Shia Islam because they claim that Jesus (PBUH) and the Madhi are one in the same and came to Earth in the form of Wallace Fard Muhammad.

NOI members are more hated within Islam than anything because they are heretics. As are terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. "Infidels" are those who have heard of Islam, the Qu'ran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and do not become Muslims. Heretics are those who call themselves Muslims and yet deviate from the Word. This is why there is such a rift between Sunni and Shia. Each consider the other heretics. Worse than infidels.

The only point I'm making is that most of us here don't know or understand the differences. Honestly, it sounds like a Catholic or Baptist badmouthing the Mormons. To us, if they follow Mohammed, call God Allah and pray facing Mecca, they're Muslims. The particular sect is essentially meaningless because the differences appear far smaller than the smiliarities to our eyes.

[Centrist]

Moracca wrote: Centrist wrote: Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

It's not that he's a convert. It's that he's one of the most famous people in the world, and is widely respected around the world. Although, that being said, there's something to looking to converts as they have knowledge and understanding of more than one side of an issue.

I couldn't begin to tell you what flavor of Islam Muhammed Ali follows.

Face it, there aren't THAT many widely known, much less widely respected, Muslims in the western world. I can't name a single Imam in the US, and I pay attention (at least a little bit). Islam's "bad guys" are much more famous here than Islam's good guys are.

Muhammad Ali has already come out against terrorism. The Salafists don't care. He'd be one of the first they'd kill if they could.

Anyway....check out this site to see some Muslims who do care about the US:

www.muslimsforamerica.us

Its a group I am involved with here in southern California. Probably more coming up as I'm semi-non-mobile or whatever.

Thank you. I'll check out the link when I have time. I'd love to see who our support is.

On a different note, I don't care if the Salafists will listen to any of them (they won't listen to anybody). It's not the Salafists we want them to address. We want them to address us non-Muslims, for one, but more importantly the Muslims sitting on the fence. The ones who are sort of apathetic, the ones who are.... doing nothing, or very, very little, to change the perception of their faith to others. Perhaps the perception is unfair. It most likely is unfair. But it's still the perception, and it's going to be up to you and others like you to change that.

[Timmytour]

Centrist wrote: Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

Muhammad Ali is member of the Nation of Islam, which is neither Sunni or Shia. In fact, it is universally rejected in both Sunni and Shia Islam because they claim that Jesus (PBUH) and the Madhi are one in the same and came to Earth in the form of Wallace Fard Muhammad.

NOI members are more hated within Islam than anything because they are heretics. As are terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. "Infidels" are those who have heard of Islam, the Qu'ran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and do not become Muslims. Heretics are those who call themselves Muslims and yet deviate from the Word. This is why there is such a rift between Sunni and Shia. Each consider the other heretics. Worse than infidels.

The only point I'm making is that most of us here don't know or understand the differences. Honestly, it sounds like a Catholic or Baptist badmouthing the Mormons. To us, if they follow Mohammed, call God Allah and pray facing Mecca, they're Muslims. The particular sect is essentially meaningless because the differences appear far smaller than the smiliarities to our eyes.

The real point is that you are not taking in what you are looking for.

I had no idea what Mohammed Ali was or what he has said so I´m grateful to Moracca for the education.

That said it was information I was never looking for. On the other hand you were bemoaning the fact he had not come out and spoke against it when it turns out he had :shock:

I´m not sure where that leaves your argument.

[Centrist]

Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: Moracca wrote: Timmytour wrote: Centrist wrote: For example, Muhammed Ali is a public figure. Whether he has any theological training or not, the fact that he's Muhammed Ali has a fair amount of pull, so we'd look to him for condemnations. He may not hold any actual authority inside the faith from a theological standpoint, but because he is/was media savvy and a public figure, we'd accept that.

Why is it people always look to the converts for their opinions rather than those who have held a lifelong faith :lol:

Bearing in mind what Moracca has posted, do you imagine Muhammed Ali, who I think could teach Bush a lot about what "fighting" with some class can really achieve, is a Sunni or a Shiite?

Muhammad Ali is member of the Nation of Islam, which is neither Sunni or Shia. In fact, it is universally rejected in both Sunni and Shia Islam because they claim that Jesus (PBUH) and the Madhi are one in the same and came to Earth in the form of Wallace Fard Muhammad.

NOI members are more hated within Islam than anything because they are heretics. As are terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. "Infidels" are those who have heard of Islam, the Qu'ran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and do not become Muslims. Heretics are those who call themselves Muslims and yet deviate from the Word. This is why there is such a rift between Sunni and Shia. Each consider the other heretics. Worse than infidels.

The only point I'm making is that most of us here don't know or understand the differences. Honestly, it sounds like a Catholic or Baptist badmouthing the Mormons. To us, if they follow Mohammed, call God Allah and pray facing Mecca, they're Muslims. The particular sect is essentially meaningless because the differences appear far smaller than the smiliarities to our eyes.

The real point is that you are not taking in what you are looking for.

I had no idea what Mohammed Ali was or what he has said so I´m grateful to Moracca for the education.

That said it was information I was never looking for. On the other hand you were bemoaning the fact he had not come out and spoke against it when it turns out he had :shock:

I´m not sure where that leaves your argument.

I'm not making myself clear. There is no argument here. I'm making suggestions, or trying to, to someone who's in a position to consider them and maybe put them to use. Ali was just an example, nothing more.

The fact that he's NOI and not Shia or Sunni means next to nothing to me for a couple of reasons. The first reason is the one I gave above about the differences appearing far smaller than the similarities to an ignorant eye like mine. The second is that the fact that there ARE differences is meaningless anyway as Muslims of all varieties need to join in the support and/or condemnations. The more vocal ALL of them are, the less crap they'll have to listen to from narrow-minded bigots who paint all of Islam with the terrorist-colored brush.

It's a public relations battle, and you can't win if you stay silent.

[Moracca]

The fact of the matter is that almost every leader in Muslim nations have spoke out against terror. In fact, many Muslim nations have supported out efforts in the WoT because it also affects them. I don't know what some people expect. Afterall, its usually Muslims who die to terrorism, not Americans. Muslims aren't going to apologize for 9-11 forever. On top of that, only 3 Muslim Americans that I know of have commited acts of terror against American interests. John Walker Lindh, John Allan Muhammad and that US Army sergeant who tossed grenades into a 101st Airborne command tent. Every Muslim organization that I know of has condemned those acts. But only John Walker Lindh's was actually contected to a terrorist organization and he didn't even give an American a scratch as far as I know.

What is it that people want exactly?

[beachbum bob]

Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian?

Is it okay for Americans to question the American leadership and the actions of other Americans and still be allowed to call themselves Americans?

I'll tell everyone why I asked these questions after I get a few answers. Its NOT an attack on anyone at all, so please don't think that I'm trying to bait you into anything.

Thanks everyone! :flwr:

The questioning of authority is what keeps authority from becoming all dominating and is the duty of the members of any group to do so....fraud and corruption and abuse of power happens BECAUSE PEOPLE DON"T.....question what goes on....

The root of being an american is standing up and saying WTF...I question the morals and ethics of those who don't say anything

[Snake]

Moracca wrote: Okay, is it okay for Christians to question Christian leadership and the actions of other individual Christians and still be allowed to call themselves a Christian? yes

Quote: Is it okay for Americans to question the American leadership and the actions of other Americans and still be allowed to call themselves Americans? depends

Quote: I'll tell everyone why I asked these questions after I get a few answers. Its NOT an attack on anyone at all, so please don't think that I'm trying to bait you into anything.

Thanks everyone! :flwr: K