Re: How factual are second-hand translations?

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 14:59:08 MST

Spike Jones wrote:
> > Dossy <>
> >
> > >are you basing your "facts" on a translation that's bankrolled
> > > by the United States?
> > John Clark wrote:
> > I don't know who paid for the translation I read, probably nobody.
> > Millions of people on this planet that can speak Arabic and English...
> Can we not find an Arabic speaking bin Ladin apologist who is
> willing to attempt a translation of those comments with as much
> pro-OBL spin as can possibly be squeezed out?
> If the real meaning of his words are anything like the translations
> given, it is nothing short of a declaration of total war on all of
> humanity outside on small subset of the Islamic faith. spike

I may be incorrect on my previous argument that bin Laden's call
to jihad against all infidels is held by few and is not more
endemic. I have been reading more about the differences between
Islam and Christianity lately. It seems that in the former
saying "Islamic fundamentalist" is fairly redundant compared to
saying "Christian fundamentalist". Christianity includes both
those who take scripture as being revealed truth and inerrant
and those who do not take that position. Islam however is
centered around a much deeper belief that the Koran is literally
revealed truth, literally the Word of God and utterly
unquestionable along with many other "sayings of Muhammad".
There is far less "wiggle room". To wiggle much at all is to
risk death in a country ruled by Islamic law. Many have died
for their criticisms of Islam. I also ran across this quote
from Khomeini back around 1989 (around the Rushdie incident)
responding to Western aplogists and Muslim moderates that gives
me pause:

" Islam makes it incombent on all adult males, provided they are
not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the
conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is
obeyed in every country in the world.
        But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam
wants to conquer the whole world....Those who know nothing of
Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say
this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as
they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit
back until they are devoured by [the unbelivers]? Islam says:
Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!
Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam
says: Whatever good that there is exists thanks to the sword and
in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient
except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which
can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of
other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet]
urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean
that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I
spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Remember the fattwa against Rushdie for blaspheming Islam and
its prophet. Remember that that was taken very seriously by
Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Remember also those in the West
who made apologetics for such and changed their behavior to not
offend Muslims and risk danger to themselves. Relatively few
stood up for freedom of speech and of the press. Even then we
believed that Muslims can be moved to very desperate means by
such calls and that the danger is very real.

I wish it were not so but there is in fact more than a little
reason to take these dangers of Muslim calls for jihad

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST