h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Uber Phreak: it is not according to Islam to treat women as inferior. That is only a particular interpretation of Islam, like you get some interpretations of Christianity as well that condemn women to trivial social roles. In fact, the Koran says men and women are equal. Women even accompanied men into battle on occasion, bearing swords and fighting alongside them! There is no law that says they should cover up or even wear veils. As far as I know there's only a law that prophetesses (or priestesses?) shoud wear veils during certain rituals. Many Muslim women don't, and in many Islamic countries it's a rarety. Over here it's quite unusual to see a Muslim woman wearing a veil. In our country, the head of the, I think, council for Gender Equality is a Muslim, and he's much more liberal in his views than the average Christian! Furthermore, the Koran also says that women should be educated the same as men.

Okay, Uber Phreak - please don't take this as more 'America Bashing'. It is all related to the title of this thread - some people really wish to know the reason! Anyways it's a super-long post so you may skip it by all means.

The title of this thread is 'Love Islam, Hate America', and the question is: why do Muslims hate America so?

I am not a Muslim and do not know that much about Islam. However, I do know much about people and their motivations,
and I know about religious fundamentalism, and a bit about history and the way politics work.

Please excuse me people, because I have a lot that I wish to say and cannot say all of it in one posting.
I have read this entire thread up till here, but will read it and reread it again in the future.

I wish to again say what others have said here: Islam is not a single, simple religion - there are different
varieties of it. There are very 'liberal' forms of Islam. There are a great many countries that are chiefly
Islamic, and a great many more countries with large groups of Muslims in them. Almost all countries in Africa
have large numbers of Muslims living in them. As my friends LeKZ informed me, Indonesia is the largest Muslim
country in the world - way to the east, from the Southeast Asian mainland into the Pacific ocean. There are large
numbers of Muslims living in Europe, Russia, and America. So we are talking about *a lot* of people here. They
also vary a lot.

I think it is a vast oversimplification to say that all Muslims hate America. I'm not accusing the person who
started this thread of having said that. I just want to stress it again, in case there are still some people
reading here who believe it.

There are *many* Muslims who hate the 'idea' of America. That means, American foreign policies, American popular
culture, American economic imperialism. Americans may not realise this, but - American culture is *seriously*
threatening native cultures in many parts of the world. This is perhaps something you will not be able to
understand. Basically, local languages, ways of life, and arts are dying out and being replaced by English, and poor
imitations of American lifestyles and artefacts. Again I stress, you may not be able to understand how serious
this is - I will in fact need to write a separate bit, or quite a few bits, about that. It is not affecting Muslims
alone, but many other cultures around the world. The Muslims are merely the most numerous and strongest
representatives of such threatened cultures. There is no single Islamic culture - but there is a kind of bond
between all Islamic groups, all the same. Like there isn't really any single 'American' culture either. The
'American culture' that is threatening other cultures is not the actual 'culture' of Americans living in America
- it is the 'American culture' portrayed in other countries by movies, magazines and glitzy ads - which is of course a
superficial sham 'culture', only an appearance, 'image', designed to sell products, which leads many people to believe
Americans are shallow. But many young people are impressed by it all and talk and dress and behave like Americans
IN MOVIES and think they are very cool, and forget their native traditions, and where they belong in the world.
Again for the third time - many of you may not understand why this is a problem, which is why I will need to give
it some detailed treatment elsewhere.

Many Muslims (not to mention other people all over the world) *hate* this destruction and trivialisation of their
native cultures and traditions, because they care for their native cultures and traditions - they recognise what
is valuable in them, and realise that the 'American export culture' that it is being replaced by is not enough to
give people lasting value, meaning and security in life.

BUT - this 'hatred' of 'American (export) culture' is NOT enough to justify the kind of attacks of Tuesday. It is not THE REASON for those attacks. The
bombings happened FOR A DIFFERENT REASON. We'll get to that reason after first talking about some more 'America hatred'.

Then there's American economic Imperialism. That basically means that America is richer than any other country - for various reasons, things that happened
long in the past mostly, many of which have happened as a result of sheer good luck - but now, because it is richer than anybody else, it is also strong
enough to keep everybody else in a position of weakness, forever, while it keeps getting richer itself. So - in any non-American country, American
companies are *always* more competitive than local companies. Local industries are destroyed and replaced by American industries. America 'buy out'
countries piece by piece. The profits of the production in those countries go mostly to America, and there is very little left over for the people in
those countries. So - in Africa there are many mines that extract an incredible wealth of strategic minerals. Those minerals go mostly to America. The
workers of those mines are given really sh*tty salaries and have to live in quite dismal living circumstances. You'll find the same sort of thing all over
the Third World.

The actual culprits are, in fact, not 'America' as a whole, but only a few American companies/corporations, and also some from Europe and Asia. It's
only a minority of Americans that are ultra-rich - not the 'average American. 'America', the country,
however, is seen as the worst offender - the world seat, after all, of capitalism, wealth, profit and competitiveness. The American government allow big
corporations to thrive and exploit people, in the name of the 'competitive free marked economy'. Many Third Worlders *hate* this 'competitiveness',
because we are so far behind America that there is no fairness in competition between us. It is like a fight between Mike Tyson and a malnourished
two-year-old baby.

Actually, many Islamic countries are in a fairly favourable position, economically, because they have very large oil reserves. That gives them some
economic power relative to America. But many Islamic countries, like Afghanistan for instance, are mainly very poor. America very probably has an agenda
to do whatever it can to keep Islamic countries as weak as possible - because if Islamic countries become economically strong, they may be able to exploit
America on their part by withholding oil supplies or manipulating oil prices. But of course, there are oil reserves in other places in the world as well.
The Muslim countries don't have a monopoly on it. And muslim countries need some other things that they, in turn can only get from other countries such as
America.

I don't have many facts about all of this - I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me I'm wrong about something and give me more detail - and anyways I will
be looking on the 'net' from now on to gain a clearer picture of all the factors, but I think the economic factor may be another reason for 'America
hatred'. Some people say that the poorer countries are 'jealous' of America's success. Of course, jealousy is a petty and negative attitude. But there
can be some justification found if it is true that American politicians, corporations, stockholders, speculators and what have you are actually acting in
unethical ways to exploit other people, and *thereby* becoming more 'successful. Then it's not so much jealousy as justified resentment and indignation. I
say again - I don't know very much about the actual situation, how it looks in the various Muslim countries (and again remember, there are many). It's just
something I'm considering - I don't know how much of an actual factor it may be. I personally think the 'cultural' matter is more relevant.

And again, while this may be enough to make some people 'hate' America, it is not enough to make them want to commit suicide by bombing buildings with
passenger planes, killing thousands additionally. Again, it must be something else.

Then there are American 'foreign policies'. These policies have usually resulted in war, whether intentional or not.
For various reasons, wars have been raging all over the Muslim world for
centuries. Only during this century has the United States been involved in those wars, though. The reasons have been diverse. There were the World Wars,
during which there was some fighting in Muslim countries that were still controlled by various European colonial powers. There was the end of British
colonialism in India. That period ended in the partition of the Indian subcontinent, and the creation of Pakistan. The British deliberately incited
religious dissent between the Hindus and the Muslims so as to prevent the Indians from forming a united front against them. Muslims were stirred up into
committing acts of sacrilege such as slaughtering cows in front of Hindu temples (for those of you who don't know, cows are considered sacred by the Hindus
and therefore killing them is considered an actual atrocity.) Hindus and Muslims were soon so angry that they were slaughtering *each other*, which is what
the Brits wanted. But then, for a variety of reasons, they just could not maintain their colonial presence in India, gave up their empire, and left the
Indians and the Pakistanis with all the sh*t they (the Brits) created. That sh*t has not ended yet - the Indians and the Pakistanis are now both nuclear
powers and as still as angry at each other as ever. Just another note for those of you who don't know - India mainly Hindu, Pakistan almost totally Muslim.
There are Muslims in India, though, and Hindus in Pakistan. Before the Brits started stirring up trouble, the Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent
co-existed peacefully, for the greatest part. After the Brits left, the US got involved with Pakistan, signing an agreement with them in the fifties -
Pakistan was seen as a 'bridge' between the West, the Middle and the Far East. It was a military alliance, the US supplied them with arms. Pakistan *almost*
borders China and was making deals with them as well while China was still fiercely communistic and antagonistic to the West. Also, Russia was making
overtures to Pakistan for the sake of oil. Pakistan has been making various deals with lots of different countries all over Asia.

They are also mainly responsible for supporting the Taliban which now rules Afghanistan. Afghanistan used to fight a war with the Russians, which lasted ten years.
The Russians could do nothing against them. During this war the United States supplied Afghanistan with weapons and support
against the Russians. After that war
the US left Afghanistan, which then descended into a civil war. Pakistan helped the militant-islamic Taliban to gain the upper hand against
the Northern Alliance by supplying them with weapons. Like others said here - the US also did a lot of supplying the Taliban with weapons, and also Pakistan.

Then there's the Persian Gulf region. There the issue has always been oil, and America has tried hard to support regimes favourable to themselves. This has usually
backfired in various ways. In Iran they supported the Shah, who had pro-Western views. Iranians though were not impressed with the perceived attempts to
'westernise' their country and destroy their traditional ways. So they rebelled, and as a result the ultra-militant Ayatollah Khomeini managed to gain
power and instituted an extremely repressive regime very hostile to the US. In Iraq the US did a similar thing. They actually helped Saddam Hussein to
gain power, again giving arms and support, again under the impression that he was sympathetic to them. Again it backfired, with Saddam himself growing
power-mad and you all probably know the outcome of that.

Let us now quickly skip over to Africa. There, Algeria used to be occupied by the French. The French did not treat the native Algerians well. It ended in a
bloody revolution during which the French were ousted, and the country became independent in 1962. There is currently still a grievous civil war going on
between Muslim extremists and the more moderate government. Next door to Algeria is Libya - which went through a very rapid transition when vast oil
reserves were discovered there in, I think, the fifties. Colonel Moammar Khaddafi took over the country in 1969 and basically chased Jews and rich people
out and turned it into a socialist state. Okay, next Egypt - I think let's skip to the Mid East now. There the problem has been - the dispute between Israel
and the Palestinians, and Israel's Arab neighbours in general. And there is a quite serious problem. Militant people in Israel believe they have a God-given
claim to the land, and wish to oust all other people. Militant people there have also wanted to expand the territory of Israel and for that sake have
carried out attacks on many of the neighbouring Arabian countries - which countries also attacked them back. During the wars between Israel and its Arabian
neighbours, many *major* atrocities were committed. Today such atrocities are still committed routinely in Israel/Palestine. I'm not saying Israel alone is
to blame. But certainly, Israelis *did* kill many people, leaving their friends and family members grieving and wanting revenge. So - extreme islamic groups in
Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, the Lebanon, and Iraq, have their antagonism towards Israel that unites them. Many *countries* in the
region see Israel as a very dangerous threat. Israel receives tremendous support from, mainly, the US.

I suspect that it is the sheer gruesomeness of the wars, attacks and oppression
in Israel/Palestine that is leading to the extreme bitterness and hatred of some Muslim extremists. The
perception is, as some others have said in this thread, that the US is propping up the regime in Israel. Without America, Israel would be nothing. So long
as America supports Israel, the nightmare will continue for them. So, their hatred is directed to America. That's their perception of America.

Right - so we have:

1) Cultural imperialism by America
2) Economic imperialism by America
3) Wars in the Gulf for the sake of oil, mainly incited and perpetuated by America
4) Support by America for the state of Israel, which visits quite terrible attacks on Palestinians and sometimes countries neighbouring Israel.

I'm *not* saying America is guilty of all these things. What matters here is people's 'perceptions'. Their perceptions may be accurate, or inaccurate -
maybe America is as guilty as they think, maybe not -
but this is what they perceive, this is what it looks like to them, this is what gives them their reasons for feeling what they feel. These perceptions
may be grounded in a lack of information, or a mistaken interpretation of information, or inaccurate information, or deliberate misinformation, or even
accurate and correctly interpreted information - whatever - but it influences people's motivations. If I *think* someone
is endangering my existence, that gives me a reason for trying to protect my existence, even if that person is *not* actually endangering my existence.

Now - those four factors mentioned above vary from country to country. But any and all of them can give some Muslims reason for resenting, even hating, 'America'. What does
'America' mean here?
It becomes a stereotype, a symbol. 'America' is thought of as a country, and maybe the American President is considered, or American soldiers, or the
image of an American businessman, or maybe raving macho American hooligans, or maybe shallow, self-centred, materialistic 'yuppies',
but rarely are individual American civilians considered as ordinary, simple people with real lives and real feelings. It is the same thing as 'Afghanistan'.
If Dubya says we're going to attack 'Afghanistan', do we think of individual Afghan people -
ordinary men and women and children getting attacked - or do we have some abstract concept of 'Afghanistan', mainly consisting of bearded men with turbans
brandishing rifles?

Some (I hope very few) Muslims may hate every American, man, women and child, while having a clear concept of the individual people - this may even intensify the hatred. I
disagree with what some other people say - it is not necessary to consider a person to be less than human in order to hate him/her. It is possible to hate
and to wish to kill a person while still considering that person a person, a human being with feelings and thoughts and all. This too may actually intensify
the hatred. Quite horrible to contemplate, but not out of the question. (The same may be true of Americans, regarding Muslims, or of any other people/person
bearing extreme hatred towards others for whatever reason.)

Other Muslims may have this vague, abstract concept of 'America' that they hate. Others may have a more sophisticated concept. They would say, they don't hate the ordinary
American people but they *do* hate unscrupulous American politicians and businesspeople.

Others may carry this process a bit further. They may say they *hate* the unscrupulous American politicians and businesspeople, and they ALSO blame the
ordinary American people for electing these people, for allowing them to gain power and to do the unscrupulous things that they do, for not removing them
from power when it becomes apparent that they're corrupt.

Then on the other hand there may be Muslims who say they hate *neither* the general American public *nor* the politicians and businesspeople. They may say
that they see the bad, but they also see a lot of good. They may say they see the bad, but they are willing to forgive it. They may still plead with Americans
to ask their government and their businesspeople to start acting more kindly and fairly towards non-American peoples, Muslims in particular.

Others may say they hate no people, but they do hate policies and practices, and would have those policies and practices reformed.

So - I have mentioned here some reasons why *some* Muslims may resent or even hate 'America', or American politicians and businesspeople, or some Americans,
or all Americans, or American policies and practices. I did not even go into the particulars of the Islamic religion, as I actually believe they are not
particularly relevant here. It merely so happens that a group of people sharing that particular religion (varied as it is) occupies a certain territory that
has various strategic benefits for various peoples, and that their particular religion unites them (loose union as it is) against people they perceive to
be their common enemies.

But what has all this to do with Tuesday's attack?

Even all of this resentment and hatred mentioned so far may still not be enough to motivate anyone to go to the lengths necessary to carry out Tuesday's
attack. As I said, the name of this thread is 'Love Islam, Hate America', and the question is, 'Why do Muslims hate America so?' The assumption seems to be
that it is the general hatred of Muslims for America that led up to this particular attack. That assumption may in fact be wrong. The attack may not be mainly
inspired by the general animosity that Muslims feel for America. Note that it is not even necessarily true that the majority of Muslims around the world
are hostile to the US.

I am going to assume that Osama Bin Laden is actually the main culprit.

If that is the case, the reasons may be even more complex. I think I'll have to write another posting about them. It is past five in the morning now and so far
I have had no sleep yesterday/last night/this morning, and so my mind is rather fuzzy, but I *had* to finish writing this.
Bear that in mind and excuse me if I have written nonsense and/or factual inaccuracies here. Please tell me if I have.
I will come back tomorrow or later and look
at this again, do some more research, and correct any errors or idiocies I can find. I don't know if any of this will help anyone understand the matter better, but if
it does, I'm happy. If anybody is upset or confused about anything I said, or disagrees, please say so and we can talk it out, I hope.

GTTD, that was hard to wade through. Many good points made in amongst the repetition. A question. Whereabouts in the world are you posting from?

Love Islam, Hate America? No. No more than Love America, Hate Islam.

Grief summed up the historical perspective very well.

One of my biggest fears, as a citizen of the United States, is the number of Americans who believe that this attack had something to do with the Islamic religion. I'm not Islamic, or very religious at all, but I know enough of the basics to know that the people responsible for these attacks have as little to do with Islam as Jerry Falwell has to do with Christianity.

I saw an interview with an Islamic college student in Denver a couple of days ago. Her comments, which I paraphrase because my memory just isn't *that* good, were along the lines of 'I'm an American. I was born here. First my country was attacked. Now, in response, my religion is under attack'.

NBY

"Young impressionable people forget where they belong in their wonderful culture! What a load of crap. It is that very repression which is causing people to leave their miserable cultures for some freedom of choise and expression. It is that very freedom that allows people (crazy) to have thier say a la Jerry Fallwell. For my money you can take ALL religion and park it where the sun don't shine. Seems to me a lot of folk are in for a big surprise when their number comes up and that's it there ain't no more. Remember this, 'This ain't no dress rehersal!' Religion is a pacifier for the masses, in much the same way as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny,and the tooth Fairey are to children, and because of freedom I am able to say that without being burned at the stake. You make your own way in life and if that means harming other people then there ought to be pay back."

SD

Some people reding this forum may be surprised to learn that I was once God's PR man in New Zealand.

It all began when I was approached by the Churches Broadcasting Commission, an ecumenical body charged with improving God's image in New Zealand through the media of radio and television. They were in need of a "Communications Officer".

I explained that I was not the right man for the job, since I didn't believe in God. They said it didn't matter, God believed in me, and anyway it was a good idea to have someone working for you who knew what the other side thought. A sort of divine undercover agent. The pay was modest, but included a golden handshake in the form of a post-dated cheque for eternity in Heaven, so I signed up for a year. I soon regretted it. God is a difficult client. Thinks He knows it all. So every idea you came up with met with the same response: "It'll never work." "But, God, how do you know it'll never work, if you haven't tried it?" "Because I'm omniscient, dummy." "Then how come your ratings are in the margin of error?"

That always got Her mad, and you'd get home to find plagues of frogs on the lawn and your family covered in boils. And of course it had to be, "Yes God, no God, three bags full, God." All kow-towing and forelock-tugging. I draw the line at worshipping the client. As I explained, "My job is to make you look good, I don't have to adore you as well." Bad call - locusts in the ensuite and it hailed over the vege garden for a month and ruined the tomatoes.

And then there were the Celestial PR Committee strategy meetings. Everybody was there: God, of course. And the 2IC. (Quite a nice bloke actually. Good sense of humour. Halfway through your cappuccino you'd find it'd been turned into Baileys Irish Cream.) Assorted disciples. Saint Peter on the door. John the Baptist, scaring the living daylights out of everybody by putting his head on your chair just before you sat down. Charlton Heston. God knows what he was doing there. "What's Charlton Heston doing here?" I asked John the Baptist's head. "God knows." Turned out he was there for a book signing.

Who else? Satan. (It was supposed to be Santa, but the angel who sends out the invites is dyslexic.) The Grim Reaper, endlessly doing his knock-knock joke: "Knock knock. Who's there? Death. Death wh... [sound of person dropping dead]. " He stole it from Rowan Atkinson. Not all that funny really, but when the Reaper tells a joke, you laugh. The Holy Ghost was there, too, but you never saw him.

Anyway, you can imagine what these meetings were like. Total chaos. And every positive suggestion rubbished. "The beard has to go," I said. "It's ageing and doesn't look good on your woman days." But, no, the beard had to stay. And the sandals and the nightie. "How about a photo opportunity? Kiss a few babies at Foodtown? Quick miracle at a political party conference - turn them all into nice people. Maybe a guest spot on a garden show." Might as well have saved my breath. God will not make a public appearance. Not company policy. "No man hath seen God." All this bureaucratic stuff.

Satan suggested a press statement, which seemed a good idea to me. God said they'd already put out a press statement and it didn't get a mention in any of the liberal rags. So he'd cursed that lot for eternity.

Though I approved of the sentiment, I could understand why so many of the media had turned it down. Who's going to print a 2000-page press statement with subheads such as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, four different versions of the same story about the 2IC, a whole list of things you aren't allowed to do (that everyone wants to do) - and, worst, there wasn't a contact person for further information. I mean, it breaks every rule in the PR book.

"Maybe we could ease off on the sex laws," Charlton Heston suggested. "They're terribly unpopular and a bit silly. I mean, eternal damnation just for lusting after a woman in your heart!" John the Baptist vetoed the idea. No surprise there. He's been a misogynist since the Salome incident.

"What we need is a slogan," I suggested at one of the meetings. "Something attention-grabbing - "If you covet your neighbour's ass, you're a bloody idiot."' And what do we get? "Repent, for the end is nigh!" The Reaper liked that.

I gave the job up after a year. My heart wasn't in it. I'm told they had NZ politician Jim Anderton handling the account for a while, but it didn't work out too well. Apparently, Jim made God feel inferior. Never a good idea with the client.

Parts of this yarn are true and parts aren't. You can decide which. But I'll give you a clue - there is a Churches Broadcasting Commission and I was their Communications Officer for a short while. I quite enjoyed the job. It was a challenge and the people were really neat. I've still got the post-dated cheque for eternity in Heaven, but I'm expecting it to bounce.

watch it that you don't get scratched, big guy... could you please remind me what did the vietnamese do to you and you attacked them?
could you also inform me on the outcome of this war? Do you happen to know how many soviets were killed by the end of their occupation of afghanistan? If you 're looking for the ones responsible ,look towards Langley,Virginia... Back in 1988 they created this story by giving guns and money to osama to drive out the soviets.If you can't find it in any history book, just watch Rambo 3........

Who are you responding to? The person in the post before yours is a New Zealander. The one before that is a Canadian living in Thailand. Which one attacked Vietnam?

you're right I'm sorry, this was meant to be an answer to the second posting but I somehow managed to send it here

Hey Vogon Z, u can reply to any contribution. But going back to No.3? That was a bit far. Anyway, back to the present.

GTTD (the griefed guy or is it grieving and tormented?) has tormented my eyes for a while up there but he has summarised(a long one though) the whole thing in an acceptable manner. Of coourse LOOny had to respond with that...... LOOny its aint God, but His reps who are messing it up for u!

I would like to point out one thing here. That as correctly pointed out, the country with the largets Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. If Islam was a problem, things would be really hot there. Mali in Africa has a population thats 95% Muslim, do u hear any rumbles ladies and gentlemen? Malaysia too is heavily Muslim. So if Islam can be present there peacefully, why not in the Mid-East? The problem in one word is LAND! Underneath which there is OIL of course.

What do u think?

Peace be Upon u all

Umm... things really *are* bloody in Indonesia right now. There's lots of areas in open rebellion against central government there, and lots of Christian/Moslem violence. If I were an international terrorist, I'd be setting up shop there right now.

Could somebody please explain to me (preferably with a term of reference) the true meaning of "Jihad". The OED describes it as a "Holy War" which is what the media has been spouting willy nilly but another source says it means "to strive for a better life". Not having a copy of the Qu'ran to hand, I can't check it out myself, at least until I pay the fine at my local library...ahem.

This is a word I think is being spouted round all over the place with the wrong meaning. The Qu'ran may well say that every Muslim should take up Jihad, but when the media are misinterpreting the meaning, that itself causes all sorts of bad feelings against Islam.

Thanks

A few quick notes:

Please, people, I believe the intention of this thread is for people to learn to *UNDERSTAND* mutual points of view. So please do not say any insulting things here. Do not insult people's religion, do not represent any religion in a demeaning way, or insult religion in general. Do not stereotype any groups, please. Do not say things that can make people angry, because that does not contribute to understanding.

Conflict around the world often involves religion, but religion per se is not the cause. Like somebody else here said - there are football hooligans, but not all football spectators are like that. Saying that religion should be eliminated to end such conflicts is like saying sport should be eliminated to end football hooliganism.

Will speak more later - I have to do a lot of reading first, so may only post again in this thread in a day or two. I'm going to try and find out a bit more about Islam and about the historic situation in North Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, Southeast Asia, and so on. I urge everybody else to do the same. Read some books! Search the 'net! Gain some perspective!

From what I gather, "Jihad" means a "struggle against evil". This can come in numerous forms. For example, it can manifest itself as a personal struggle, not dissimalar from christians. This concept can also be interpreted as a stuggle against an evil oppressor, as percieved by the strugglees.

Yes indeed, the point of this thread is to promote mutual understanding of the benifits and drawbacks of other points of view. I think we're all learning something, if a bit too late.
Rational, thinking persons can see that Islam is not evil. But in our eagerness to exonerate this religion of misdeeds, let us not say that it is perfect. I think there are elements in it, while not bad in themselves, that contribute to bad deeds. The daughters of Mohammed promoted the new religion as the gentle creed of their father, yet as the it spread out of Arabia, it incorporated the injustices to women it encountered in neighboring countries: in Iran it found the chador and seclusion, in Africa it found genital mutilation. These things are not part of the religion, but those who practice and enforce them say they are. I don't pretend to know enough to provide further analysis of this, but perhaps someone else can comment?
Another example is the sense of brotherhood. It seems that Muslims feel a harm done to their neighbors is a harm done to them. Political analysts trying to make sense of the 11th's tragedies have pointed to US foreign policy in the midddle east as one of the possible causes for such hateful attacks. It has also been pointed out that one of the risks of invading Afganistan as retaliation, is incurring the anger of other Islamic nations.
As long as an offense to any one of a very large group of people is seen as an offense to the entire group, the violence will keep escalating.
The ideal solution would be to follow the advice of a prophet revered in both Christianity and Islam and "turn the other cheek."
The Presidend of the USA, however, has told its citizens that they won't.

Hey Q,
The word JIHAD literally means "striving" and more specifically in Islam means "striving in the way of Allah (God)". You have asked for references but this will only be the Quran (which the fees prevent u from getting-pay up!) and the Hadith of the Prophet (pbuh). But I will give u a summary nevertheless.
Jihad is ordained on all and every Muslim, young and old, male and female, free and bonded. Al-jihad can be conducted in three main ways:

1. With the heart - here the aim is good intentions. This is usually the begining of any act of a human being. If we intend to do good, we have started Al-Jihad. If we intend to do bad, we lose the pleasure of God from the beginning of the act.

2. Wth the tongue - the next level is communicating our intentions. Speech then becomes the next level of Al-jihad. We should, to quote the prophet, "...invite people to Islam using nice words...". Our tongues should say the truth and it should say it in a manner that does not offend others. For harsh words hurt both the llistener and the speaker.

3. Actions - this the final level. We should use our bodies to please Allah. Meaning, the way we walk on the earth, the way we sit on the eart, the way treat each other, the way we treat the rest of God's creatures including plants and animals; our actions should portray al-jihad. And here is where fighting in the path of God is permitted. The Quran says, "Permission to fight is given to those who are fighting them (believers) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory. Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said:"Our Lord is Allah." (V.22:39,40).
Fighting is not the corner-stone of this word. It is but a footnote in the paragraph of Jihad, but the cleverly manipulated media has hang onto it like its THE meaning.

Permit me to add some more misunderstood (read manipulated) words. In the 70s it used to be "terrorists"; in the 80s it became "Arab terrorists" and its at this time when all other groups "ceased" being called terrorists. The words was reserved for Arabs only. Then in the 90s it has been trabsformed into "Muslim extremists". Therefore they readily interchange the words "terrorist", "arab", and "muslim", the intention being to cloud any difference. At this rate being a muslim qualifies you (their thread, not mine) to be a terrorist. But other groups will be called "seperatists", "rebels", even "warlord", but NOT terrorist! This is the western media for you. Controlled by people who have a very specific agenda. Note that I do not say the common fellow in the streets, its a few men and women up that corporate ladder.

It is my sincere hope that we have learnt a little about JIHAD, for there are volumes written about this word. Volumes!
May Allah Be Pleased with my effort

Peace

I think Ordeneus in Why do People Hate Americans?" may have hit the point:

"Americans are possesed of a great sense of pride in America, and in American culture (sweeping generalization but there we go). To non Americans this comes across as disrespectful and arrogant..."

This is sometimes relabeled as Patriotism. The difference between the British (particularly English) and the Americans is that while both societies think they are great, the Americans let everybody know it and state it as fact, which comes across as disrespectful and arrogant (whether it is or isn't).

Bambi

I just heard in the news that Bush is using the word "crusade", and he means it in a literal sense. Little good can come of this.

If Bush is now "crusading" I think he has just opened a can of duduz! It is heading towards that religious conflict afterall!
But I still hope it doesnt. Funny that me a Muslim in the streets finds no problem proposing to a Jewish girl ( I havent yet! ) while Bush and company are talking of crusading. Its only our leaders who are nuts. Down here in the trenches we are just fine!! :D

Theanthrope, there's nothing wrong with the view that "an offense to any one of a very large group of people is seen as an offense to the entire group". Most criminal codes are based on exactly that ideal; indeed, the attacks on America have resulted in the very same principle being applied across 19 nations in the form of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The real problem is when outsiders are not allowed redress against members of the group.