More On Prager's Five Questions

I like this Sohaib Sandhu (homepage) guy. He's a Saudi blogger who's taken up the challenge of answering Dennis Prager's five questions to Muslims. I posted Sandhu's first response with my comments, and he's answered again.

You'll find his tone pleasant and engaging, just as you'll find troubling the gulf between reasonable Saudis and reasonable Americans. Even though there are helpful connections, you can't avoid the gulf. Here's his latest response:

Laer,

I'll try and address the further points you raise.

"I have heard of not a single Imam being booted from his position for promoting terrorist jihad against innocents -- even if those victims are Muslims."

Actually, in Saudi Arabia they have rounded up a lot of Imams - over 1000 of them, they are in jail now.

One of the most Respected Senior Scholars made it plain that targeting innocents was against the principles of Islam.

Fatwas are taken very seriously Laer. The phrase "empty fatwa" does not do justice to what a Fatwa (or Islamic legal opinion)is.

Why, then, do jihadists continue to target innocents at wedding parties in Amman and train stations in Madrid? It is in part because violent jihadists are working far outside the mainstream, and it is also because there are Imams who are writing fatwahs that encourage them.

I don't know what Islam can do about the radical Islamic leaders who follow bin Laden's path and issue fatwahs of terror. According to Sandhu, they are thrown in jail. To an outsider, it appears to be nothing more than conflicting Fatwahs, but Sandhu may have a point: If the majority of Muslims follow the mainstream fatwahs then the majority of Muslims are mainstream.

Now Islam needs to make the majority stop the minority.

Laer, In France, I think the problem is related more to the social descrimination and apparent injustices that minorities apparently suffer in France. People of different ilks have been involved in the riots. There is no Islamic connection. Yes there are Muslims involved but I think thats where the connection ends.

I agree, but with the expansion to note that there are only Muslims involved. I am concerned that those who would want to spread terror will recruit suicide bombers and warriors from these neighborhoods.

Could you just clarify where "terrorist jihad" comes into it. I'm not sure what you mean by this term and would be grateful for clarification so that I can try and give an appropriate response.

This is perhaps the most troubling comment in Sandhu's response. Americans, Europeans and other victims of terror are fully aware of multiple fatwahs calling Muslims to bin Laden-like terrorism. Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, subway riders in England, 9/11 victims' families, troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, school kids in Israel, nightclub goers in Bali -- all understand this term fully and can point to Imams who promote the use of terror in a jihad against all things non-Muslim.

But this thoughtful Saudi is puzzled by the phrase. For his benefit: Every terrorist act carried out by Islamist extremists is carried out in the name of jihad. Palestinian suicide bombers refer to jihad in their taped pre-explosion messages, just as al Zarqawi talks in jihadist terms. They are telling us that this is a holy war against everyone in the world who doesn't believe as they believe, and that terror is an accepted method for carrying out that war.

Your next point:

"Why is Islam the only religion today that propogates so much violence?"

Laer, regarding the points re: Israel. The facts are clear regarding the history of the region. Read the history books and there is a lot of detail about the events that led to Israels creation.There was no concerted effort to be anti-Israeli or to use Soundbites. I was just trying to explain what incites people to do such acts. I'm sure you appreciate this.

Is violence not a part of war? In that situation no ideology or ism has a problem with this notion. Its not uniquely Islamic. In the context of war, then violence is the norm.

Sandhu, every war relating to Israel was a war of aggression perpetrated by its Arab neighbors. That is the history of the region. Every effort by Israel to bring peace by giving up is land and making other concessions, is met by suicide bombers and infitada. It is not Israel that is bringing war there; it is their Arab enemies. It is not Israel that is impoverishing the Palestinians; it is the Palestinian leaders.

I understand why Sandhu has this so wrong. There is no accurate reporting of Israel in the Arab press. There is no accurate teaching of Israel in the Arab schools. Why is this? The Koran says the Jews are a special people and it means it in a positive way.

Here in America, we have a vocal anti-Israel faction and a vocal pro-Israel faction, so we get all the news reported, and it is evident that Arab agression against Israel -- and non-Arab Muslim aggression, as recently expounded by Iran's president -- is the genesis of the problem.

Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country? Your point

"but how will we know their choice if they're never given the opportunity to choose?"

Laer, do you remember Algeria? The Islamic Front won over 70% of the vote in the first round. They were blatantly an Islamic party. The view was that they would win the second round hands down. You may recall that the elections were then cancelled. The world looked on and ignored what had happened and since then the violence has escalated to sad heights that both you and I would find disgusting. That was an experiment to try out a voting system in an Islamic country and it back fired for those who thought that the Islamists would lose.

I am not an expert in Algerian history, so I'll take what Sandhu's saying here at face value. But Algeria's voting occured before bin Laden and the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that his kind have perpetrated in the name of Sharia or whatever. It came before America's move to plant democracy, and the evidence Arabs are now seeing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere that democracy can work in the Islamic world.

If all 47 nations held a vote today -- Do you want a continuation of the current regime, or a more Democratic nation? -- what do you think the result would be?

Next Point

"Most of those "dictators" are not Israelis, not even Palestinians. Most of the terrorists are coming from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and other repressive states. These answers also fail to ask the fundamental question of what the Palestinian authority did wiht all the aid it received. Who really repressed the Palestinians -- the Israelis, or the Palestinian leaders who squandered the world's largesse?"

I cannot agree with you more.

Its about time that people had the right to choose.

Like I said, I like this guy. I hope he doesn't get in trouble for saying what he says in a place where free speech is not entirely free.