site-wide search

SomaliNet Forums: Archives

This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

A message from a Muslim woman to Senator John of Arizona!!

SomaliNet Forum (Archive): Islam (Religion): Archive (Before Feb. 16, 2001): A message from a Muslim woman to Senator John of Arizona!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Waleed

Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 05:58 pm
This message was sent to:
Dear Senator Jon Kyl
*****************************
Copy of message text follows:
*****************************
October 19, 2000

Senator Kyl:
I am a white female. I am a US citizen. I am a registered republican voter and taxpayer in Arizona. I have been a republican all my voting
life.

I am 53 years old and have served the people of our great state for over 23 years as a certified full-time employed peace officer. I am a
college graduate and spend many hours conducting research into many disciplines.
I am also a Muslim and my religion is Islam. I am not now and have never been a terrorist nor have I associated with terrorists past and present! I do not support terrorism by any persons or groups and believe all terrorists should be brought to justice. I believe all criminal acts should be answered with justice. I have no bias or prejudices except when it comes to criminal acts and I am not the judge of people found guilty of terrorism and criminal acts.

I do not support any terrorist act and Islam does not promote terrorism in this country, any country and against any people or religion.
I attend prayer and community functions at the Tempe Mosque. There are no terrorist plans or activities going on at this mosque!
You have listed this Mosque and its members as a possible or potential terrorist threat.
What did you base this on? What facts do you have to support this kind of statement? What past, present or future acts-facts can you cite
that would permit you to include this Mosque and its members on your “List”? You made a statement, and I am not quoting, but in this statement you
said you supported Israel no matter what. Were you speaking for yourself? The Republicans in Arizona, the people of Arizona, for Mr. Bush?,
for our Government? I am a taxpayer, resident of Arizona, registered Republican, and natural born citizen of this country. Mr. Kyle you were NOT speaking for me.

My studies have shown that there was no middle east conflict, prior to 1944, before Jewish refugees from World War II were taken to the mid
east by the US, England and other free countries in response to Hitler’s death camps and killing of the Jewish people in Europe. Over the next
three years, the Jewish settlers were given resources and aid, primarily from the US.
As more and more Jewish refugees arrived as settlers, more land and resources were taken from the Arab peoples (Arab Christians and Arab
Muslims). The Arab peoples were never compensated and as the Jewish population grew, so did their need for more money from the US and land from the Arabs living their before the Jewish settlers’ arrivals.
Just last week on Cox Cable TV, the government of Israel was seeking $350 donations to pay for travel costs of Russian Jews to Israel. More
Jewish settlers for the Israel occupied Palestinian lands! This while the leaders of Israel deny this type of wrong doing!

Our news media does not show the American-US people the truth, only what our government policy makers want us to know about what is really
happening. The Internet has provided access to other countries’ news media and our government can no longer censor the truth, pictures, and the censure of Israel’s actions past and present by the European countries and the UN.
Censoring the truth about Palestine and Israel in the name of foreign policy or national defense is wrong.

The truth will become known Mr. Kyle. Much like what happened to the Native American Indians when the white settlers came here to flee from religious persecution from England and Europe.
The white men/women kept coming and needed more land and resources so they fought the Indians, made false treaties with them, gave them liquor
and disease to weaken them and finally over powered the Indians and herded them into reservations where for many years they were kept in abject poverty with no rights or freedom of movement. Now hundreds of years later our government has acknowledged that what the early
settlers and our early government and US citizens did to the Native Americans was wrong. This is what has happened to the Palestinian people. And yes they have fought back. And yes they see the US as the financier of Israel. And yes some Arabs have committed acts of terrorism and brutality. These terrorists acts are not approved by practicing Muslims of Islam. They are understood but not approved.
Today if a group of people went to our deserts or uninhabited land and set up homes and a rich country paid for what they needed, and helped
them establish an army with nuclear weapons, what would you think or do? then these squatters brought in more refugees of their belief and
this group of people began taking Arizona towns, ranches, farm lands, homes and refused to allow our Arizona citizens to move freely in land
occupied by the “new settlers”, what would the people of Arizona do?
What would our government do? Then this rich country, by their military might and financial power allowed these settlers to declare these
lands as their country? Mr. Kyl what would you do? How would you feel?
Why do we (US) support Israel even when they are not just, fair or when they are being an aggressor? Is it because of this country’s guilt
about failing to help them when Hitler was killing them by the millions and we knew but did not want to fight until we were attacked ourselves? Is it this guilt that places blinders on the eyes of our government? Or is our support for Israel, when they are wrong, because of political reasons such as ensuring we have a dependent location in the mid east in case we need it for defense of our country or some other country in that half of the world?
Is this reason enough to destroy the integrity our Constitution and country is supposed to stand for?

Our government made many mistakes and wronged the Native Indians and wronged the American citizen Japanese. We admitted our wrong and are working on reparations. We led the charge to prove Switzerland wronged the Jewish people. Now there are reparations. How can the Jewish people justify their taking of land and property-resources without compensation to its rightful owners? How can they do this after all that happened to them?

In conclusion, I would like to ask you to think on the following:
The Jewish people believe Jesus was a political trouble maker and that his mother Mary was a harlot or prostitute. They do not believe in
the Virgin birth. They do not believe that God will send Jesus to our world before Judgment Day. They believe they are God’s chosen people and
only they have a right to see Heaven. For diplomacy and to get the aid and powerful support of our country they smile to our faces. They do not believe we are people God recognizes as His people. Islam believes that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Islam believes that Jesus is a great Prophet that God chose to speak to the Jewish
people. They rejected God’s words, Jesus and Mary. Islam believes in Heaven and Hell and that we are judged by God for how we live. We believe in Judgment Day, Jesus’ return to this world by God. We believe in repentance of sin and asking God’s forgiveness. We believe in giving charity and praying 5 times a day to God to thank Him and Praise Him.
Why would the US support Israel and its Jewish people and turn their back on an Islamic people who practices and believes in religious
tolerance and leaves judgment to God?

When the brothers from our Mosque told you they could obtain 20,000
signatures on their protest petition to your actions, they told you the truth. They answer to God and would not lie. They fear God and His
punishments for lies. There are over a million Muslims in our country who are citizens and can vote. We have a voice and we will be heard
when unjust statements are said about our Muslim community.
As a registered republican voter in Arizona, tax payer, citizen of our country and a Muslim freely practicing my religious beliefs as guaranteed by our Constitution, I request an apology from you to
myself, the brothers and sisters of my mosque and to all Muslims that practice Islam in this state.
You are accountable to me because I am your employer. As your employer I am requiring your response. I do not expect a response from one of
your staff. I did not elect them. I am sending a copy of this letter to my brothers and sisters in
Michigan. They recently said they endorsed Mr. Bush. This endorsement can be terminated before election day Mr. Kyl, should your actions be
supported by Mr. Bush. I will be asking the Bush Campaign if Mr. Bush supports your recent actions here in Arizona.
Sincerely,
Linda Delgado

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

FORMERGUEST.

Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:16 am
WOW, touche. A strong woman in her beliefs I would say.

Waleed, thanks bro. It was interesting to read. A reminder to the jewish supporters who blindly accuse innocent and victimized people.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Dejah

Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 04:51 pm
I read this before, but thankz for sharing it with us waleed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, January 01, 2001 - 11:57 am
masha-allah!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 12:07 am
Now, note the renunciation of violence. Note the intent to express herself at the polls. Note she didn't call for a Jihad. Note she threatened to voice her opinion at the ballot box, like a civilized person. This kind of reasoned argument is far more effective than car bombs, riots and terorist attacks, which only invite retaliation.

Did you guys hear that that nut Kahane was assasinated? Finally a little precision work by the Palestinians. No one's going to miss that guy. If you're going to employ violence, do it right. I give the Palestinians a B+ for their targetting effort. They would have gotten an A but they smoked the guys wife (collateral damage) too. This kind of violence people can respect. Not shooting some kid walking to school, but targetting with precision someone who is actively engaged in an effort to force Palestinians into Jordan.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

common

Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 04:09 am
Thanks for the B+
Thanks for the lesson in how Civilised people behave. If that is how civilised people behave (which i am nethier disputing or affirming), tell me how to civislied people create social change or get into postions of power?.If this kind of reasoned arguement is more effective, how come the United States, does not deploy this kind of reasoned arguemnet, when its people die, insted the bride of frankinstein (madeline) rips arms of and has them for breakfast
Under what circumstances MM do you think Jihad is justified, are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to give us a a+ for going to Jihad.please explain. If under none, are you suggesting that we leave the Quran, or at least part of it, in order to become civilised

ain't no sunshine when Islam's gone

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 04:22 am
Jihad justified??? Hmmmm. Crusades. Was definately justified. Relgious war aimed at establishing the will of one faith over another.


Since states usually fight for self-interest, you don't get too many holy wars requiring holy response.

Bear in mind, the Palestinians problem isn't one of justification (I wouldn't call it a Jihad, I would call it a conflict of interest), it is one of ability and methods. It's not that the Palestinians aren't justified in resorting to warfare, it's that they can't win. They are fully anf completely outclassed form a military perspective. So, this brings you back to square one. How do you win??? In my opinion, the more you assault Israel with violence, the more the Israelis will respond with violence and the more they will see that response as justfied. Remember that the Israelis have a mind-set that they will never allow themselves to be vulnerable again. Before they live in fear of the destruction of the state, they will kill every Arab they see. And because they can, this makes them dangerous. Since they have a greater means of inflicting violence, provoking violence, regardless of the justification, isn't going to get the Palestinians to their desired end state. This same rationale holds true for the US. If the Palestinians want to cut the strings between the US and Palestine, they must have an information warfare strategy to undermine those connections. The above is a good example of a potentially effective approach, although it's required on a massive scale to be effective. Every riot, every kid on TV seen throwing stones at Israelis, undermines any information warfare campaign. See from my perspective the name of the game is to win - not to be right. That doesn't mean much.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

common

Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 05:03 am
OkaY you flawed

"states" function in self intrest. Everyone knows states in the middle east function as "assaybits" (see roy oliver, a french writer, in his book, the failure of political islam)in effect a seizure of the state appartus by a solidarity group, whose main concern is too maintain power.
You forget that states have people inside. Can we desist from comparing Jihad and the crusades, the crusades went around raping people,which is why you have people in the lebannon with ginger hair which jihad do you know that will conduct such activities, what did i tell you about comparing Islam and Christianity.
and where did the aim of establishing one faith over the other caome from, again the crusades, so the axis of your arguement is that the Jihad is identical to the crusades,
would it not be inaccurate, seeing as Islam has had its own military battles, which were in fact nothing like the crusades. When the Prophet peace be upon him came from Medina to Mecca and was victorious he said "from this day forth not a blemish is upon you and he sat and eat with a women who had bitten into his flesh". what has that kind of justice got to do with crusades?

If states fight for self intesrt, how is it in America interest to continue to support the zionist occupation of Palestine?

What exactly is it about a "holy" war which is invalid, but about a state war which is valid, what legitimacies the violence, apart from Max Webers defintion of the State in which it is the power who can exerecise legitimate force, is that all you are going on?.
then if, as they are, the states in the Middle exist are wholly inorganic, top down imposed, by ex colonial powers and elite mimorities, what legitimizes there force?, their boundaries are illegitimate, their soverigntiy is illegitimate, so what makes their force legitimate, could it be, the fact that their collective might, is more powerful than their individual might that makes one legitimate and other illegitimate?
you truly need to do more deleting and less saving, when it comes to your brain, i don't know how you reconcile this in your brain, that is why i get amazed about who you can look at the "material", that we have both just anaylzesd and come to a different conclusion, it smacks of misinformation, whether you generate it, or reineforce it, is not of my concern. whether you are the carrier or a micosim is irelavant. you have the same smell.

when lions learn to speak, tales of hunting will no longer favour the hunter

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Friday, January 05, 2001 - 12:20 am
Common
The reason you draw different conclusions from the same facts as I do is you are inclined to put a moral stamp on things. You associate morality with legitimacy. I do not. Whether something is right or wrong does not determine whether or not something is legitimate or illegitimate - not in a anarchic world. The state boundaries are now legitimate because the populations of those states recognize them as such. No government can rule without the consent of the people. Sometimes there is dissent, but when dissent becomes uniform the government can no longer rule. I can cite endless examples but Iran or the Soviet Union or the DDR should all do. The longer borders remain fixed and in place, the more legitimate they become. People find ways to differenciate amongst each other. So an Arab is not an Arab is not an Arab. So, whether or not all Arabic peoples should be one state or not from a moral standpoint is irrelevant. Just because the Arabs may constitute one nation does not mean that the fact that they are composed of multiple states makes them illegitimate. Just like German and Austria and Switzerland are part of different states even though they are all Germanic peoples. You follow me??? Morality has little to nothing to do with legitimacy in state affairs. That's pie in the sky nonsense. Legitimacy is derived from what is the accepted norm. Right or wrong, good or bad.

As for the Crusades being a jihad - I meant from an Islamic perspective. The Islamic communities reaction to the crusades could fairly be described as a Jihad.

I remind you of the oft used quote "war is politics by other means." Note it does not say war is legitimate politics by other means. Nor does it day war is only politics by other means when it is legitimate. If you want to really understand why states go to war, what motivates them, and why the Islamic world is faced with the challenges it is - take the moral blinders off. Stop thinking about right and wrong or good and bad. It's slanting your judgement. In state relations there are no good guys. It's not like comparing individuals. Everyone state is greedy and every state is selfish. Don't expect them to admit this and don't even try to call it hypocracy. States are expected to lay out their selfish motives to drive their populace. Populations are motivated by simple scenerios. Rare do you get a World War II kind of clash - with simple good guys and bad guys. Usually it's muddier than that. You want to point to a "right" way - the way given by God (although you can't really delineate what it's actual form is). What I'm telling you is there is no right way. There is successful and unsuccesful. If there is some sort of Islamic system out there that is better then it will rise to the top - because by definition better is stronger. Never forget the number one rule - it's a dog eat dog world. You can be dead right.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

common

Friday, January 05, 2001 - 09:09 am
MM

I did not put a moral stamp on my arguement, go back and read it. If you honestly believe that the rulers of the Arab middle east rule by consent of their population, you are mistaken. Their sole legitimacy lies in a Westphian state system, in which the soverign state is used as unit of anyalsis. Do not mistake the bloated faces of this Royal indignatories and the like which adorn the walls of that World, for love or a sense of consent. On the contray the borders do not reamin fixed and are contested in taht region of the world as much as they are in Africa, in fact everywhere, apart from the western world, and even there were growth they are nevertheless imagined and subject to lebunraum, however more importantly as huntington put it, rather crudely, all over the world Islam has bloody borders.

Secondly, seeing as the mission of the crusades was to wipe Islam of the face of the planet, wouldn't jihaad, even then be justified, or should be hold hands with daisies in our hairs, singing "feed the crusaders, we are the world, they are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day so lets start giving, there a choice were making, were saving our own lifes, its true we make a brighter day, so lets start giving"?

The Islamic state was never greedy, an assertion otherwise would be a lie, and that isn't a moral statement, it is true statement of history

you crack me up, you alwyas saying the are no good guys and bad guys, yet the allies in world war two were the good guys?, every american was more worthy then every german?, not very humanitarian

The Islamic nation will , rise to the top, becasue Allah ordained it, i know that may be hard for you to understand right now but your "damn good analysis " can start when i comes into being, if you are still around


Islam doesn't slant, my analysis, i am coming from a Islamic perspective, that contray to your belief doesn't slant my analysis, but rather quantifies it for you succeintly as you can correct me, but saying.. well that is outside the fold of Islam. As for my arguements, i quote non-muslims the majority of the time, who are Kuffar

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 03:41 am
Not very humanitarian??? You crack me up. I'm a professional soldier - I kill people for a living. That is hardly the definition of a humanitarian!!!! My humanitarian instincts begin and end with Somalia.

The Arabs were totally justified in defending their territory during the Crusades, just as the Palestinians are totally justified in their outrage today.

I do not believe Allah ordained the fate of the Earth, although he might know it. I know it's hard for you to understand that.

Perhaps men like Muhammed were never greedy - he was more of an asthetic I would imagine. But the Arab expansion was as much based on economic motives as anything else. You ask the Berbers what they think about it. Go into the Sahel and check out their opinions. I have.

As I said before, no one can rule without the consent of the people. Even in totalitarian states the people give their consent. When they don't then what happened to Slobodan Milosevic happens in other places. The police don't put down the masses, the media doesn't talk the talk, the courts don't sentance the resistance. Remember, the security apparatus of the state is part of the people. Even if a majority of the population doesn't support the government, they offer their consent when they don't force a change of government.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

common

Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 04:31 am
MM

lets be friends today, huh whatday say.

<offering out my hand>

lets also agree, that the West pumped a riddiclous amount of money in funding and promoting the outsing of Slobadan, and had an intrest in him going, lo and behold they did it. I will agree they can't get rid of saddam, while three adminstrations have tried

lets put it this way, it is easier to oust an adminstration, if western underhandness and resources are on you side.
what you think the serflike inhabitants of the arab world are gonna do, without education. People either eat well, or sleep well, throughout history
i think I know which side of the equation i am, the side the rulers are on and i can hazard a guess to what side you are on, ain't life grand?
<smile>

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 01:41 am
I'm on the side that pays me - that would be the US Army. If the SNA would offer a better overall economic package I'd join their Army - but they don't.

The population could overthrow Saddam, they just aren't motivated enough to do so.

I am reminded of an interview with a Haber Gedir woman done by P.J. O'Rourke. He asked her if she wanted peace. Of course she said. I pray for it daily. He then asked if she'd be willing for her clan to share power with other Somali clans to have that peace "With those murderers and thieves, I'd die first." People in these countries don't want peace. They want victory. They want power. The fighting goes on because they want it to - or because they don't want peace enough to stop it.

I'm still your friend sahib. Always was. I'm not enemies with folks I disagree with. Hell, very few people see things like I do - but I'm right.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

common

Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 03:50 am
lol, glad to hear it

Feel like posting? Pleaase click here for the list of current forums.