[rudyzbt]

marriage in Israel). Given in the Islamic context many more laws followed from religious laws including laws of business particular including the charge of interest. But there was a separation in different types of laws. It is a complex topic and if anyone really wants to hear more about it just ask.

To continue, it was also never a dead law, but one which changed and grew in different direction with time. For example, there is the punishment of death by stoning for adultery, a punishment which the Islamic courts in Nigeria were eager to dispense a few years ago. Now if you look at actually cases of this, you will find very few people who underwent this punishment. In fact there are haddith (sayings of the prophet later incorporated into law) that tell of a woman coming to Mohammad and stating that she had committed adultery. His answer is to tell her he did not hear her and sent her away. It was only when she returned three times and she insisted the punishment be enforced for fear she would go to hell, that he carried out the sentence. Now why is it that the law is interpreted the way it is today. And why do the Islamists blindly fall into their pattern of fanatically beliefs.

There is a historical reason that is actually pretty simple. As the Ottoman Empire began to fall apart in the early 19th century, smart young individuals were sent off to Oxford and Sorbonne to study law and equip the Ottoman to modernize to deal in trade with the western world. What began here was a period of history called the Tanzimat. Laws were steadily replaced and religious courts slowly marginalized. Schools of study of the law were closed and what was once a living and breathing legal system was quickly replaced by its western counter part and restricted in it nature. There was nowhere anymore for those Muslims to learn the law, it infrastructure was dismantled and still does not exist. There are pockets of scholars, but few really have a good grasp of law as it was practiced. Instead they seek to apply it in the horribly misinterpreted manner as was witnessed in Nigeria.

The only country that still practices full Islamic law is in Saudi Arabia (the Taliban did not practice Islamic law). Even in Saudi Arabia their own understanding of the development of Islamic law is limited and their courts based on a particular school of thought that adheres to the strictest interpretations of the laws. On a personal level I don't like it and often find the Saudis I know to be the ultimate in hypocrites (a personal bias... found through experience). So Islamic law as it once was practiced does not exist. This is the legacy of which the Islamists don't speak, nor do they really know of, and when confronted with it, they scoff and say that one does not know or is obviously a western orientalist (i.e. someone like me who is not Muslim but knows the religion better than they do) or is a bad Muslim (those scholars actually interested in the development of their religion who do not accept everything someone with a long beard dishes out at them).

In many countries throughout the world there exist those Islamists who seek to convert others to their misinterpretations. They seek to establish a new Islamic order (of course they would conveniently be the leaders of this new order). They undergo indoctrination of their cause in madrasas throughout the world. Often pulling their new servants from the poor classes with an offer of education and brotherhood. Or they look to the disaffected urbanites unable to find work or unhappy with their lot in life as it stands. They use Islam to support their political objective. A state ruled by them. Where they dictate the laws as they see and interpret them regardless of what history says. In their domestic struggle they have exported through violence there beliefs. Much as the Arab countries have used hatred of Israel as a rallying point towards unification and cooperative action, the Islamists have attacked the west in order to gain the support of those in their home countries. They make us the devil. They paint us as evil. As Dar al Harb. They contort and use religion as means to political success. They use terrorism as a tool to spread their message and gather support by turning the eyes of their local populations outward and then painting the world in colors they want those in their homes to view. Then they seek to pick up on that support and use it to their cause. This is the war which we fight. Not against Islam. But against the radical Islamists, who threatens our homes, our families and friends, and our country and the countries of our allies. They chose the wrong political scapegoat. They are hollow and lack any true sense of religion. They are indoctrinated political animals at the bottom who fight as their masters lead them, and there masters are those who indoctrinate using religion as a force to control and to maintain control and see through their vision of the world as they believe it should. They are in essence the antithesis of freedom. A scourge on the name of all religions in their use and abuse of their own people. And in their tactics which threaten the lives of those who have nothing to do with them other than having been their scapegoats.

Now there are many such organizations, I began to mention the Muslim brotherhood and its offshoots for a reason.

The name Mohammad Atta may ring a bell. He flew in the pilot seat of one of the planes that hit the world trade center. He was a member of one of these groups trained by Al Qaeda. He was Egyptian.

Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman Al Zawahiri is the son of a prominent Cairo doctor. From an old family, who grandfather was the Sheik of Al Azhar.

During the Russian Afghan war an estimated 526 Egyptians died fighting, 1/5 of the total deaths.

In well known "Londinstan" on the bank of the Thames, two Egyptians come to mind. Mustafa Kamal (Abu Hamza Al Misri) is the former publisher of the GIA weekly Al Ansar (ask me about the GIA sometime). He has a son in jail in Yemen for kidnapping British tourists. He also happens to run the Finsbury Park Mosque a central hub in the Islamist network in progressing the Jihad.
The second is Yaser Al Sirri, who heads an Islamic news agency in London that supplied the letter of accreditation to the two fake journalists who assassinated Massoud in Northern Afghanistan three days before 9/11.

Why am I mentioning all of these individuals? Well they are all part of the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates I should say. Followers of Islamists principals. The sum of the earth. They all come from Egypt, but many had to flee their own country which would not tolerate them. Two of them simply settled in comfort in the religiously free environment of England. There home country is for the most part Muslim. We are not at war with Egypt. We are definitely not at war with England which is home to two of these terrorists now. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with these men. These people who seek to war with us. These people, who have brought violence, hurt, and hate with a message of religious intolerance in promoting themselves.

Sorry to have gone on and on. This topic gets me going. I am ready to be blasted for my views now. So shoot away. If I have offended anyone I am sorry. If I was wrong for posting this bit, I am sorry. I will remove it immediately. I felt these thoughts were important enough to write. It is my opinion (quite abridged actually). But is opinion based on roughly 5 years of research dating previous to 9/11.