*First of all, the Bush-Cheney use of the term 'pre-emptive war" is a missnomer. Pre-emption is allowed in international law when there is a 'clear and imminent threat'. Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not pose either a clear or an imminent threat to the US. Manji, being a historian, should know the difference between the real pre-emption and the false uses of the term to justify aggression. As for the Prophet Muhammad, most of the warfare he engaged in during his life was defensive in nature. The Quraish clan from Mecca twice tried to conquer Meddina and destroy Muhammad. During the second attempt, they were aided by the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza. This was admitted by the Banu Quraiza themselves, and an arbiter was selected whom they expected to be favourable to them but who turned out a harsh decision. (The adult male members of the tribe were slaughtered, the women and children sold to slavery.) This was to serve as an example to the other Jewish tribes of Meddina to warn them against treason. (There were more than three of them, as Manji should know.) A regrettable episode but hasn't got much to do with the issue of pre-emptive warfare, and I am not sure why Manji feels that it should be invoked in this context. O.K. Citing Nawash's comment that fundamentalist Islam is one of the greatest threats to the world, Mike rejoined: "Except for the Bush-Cheney doctrine of pre-emptive war ..." Manji describes Mohammed's pre-emption doctrine in some detail below. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html