[lit-ideas] Re: Moderate Muslims

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:00:40 -0700 (PDT)

*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


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 
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: