The problem with Islam

[KafirChobee]

OK, so I over generalized and showed my ass in some ways. [I apologize to Brenus, I did neglect one significant point about the St. Bathelemy thingy. That the Catholics simply beat the Protestants to the gun. Both seemed intent on being the "correct" relgion for the area. it was a matter of "Do unto others, before do unto you". I may have left out that part. Sorry. Only meant it as a far flung example of our own intolerances in the Christian community - me thinks I flung it to far.

Still, I remain somewhat entrenched in the premise that Western nations have either directly or inadvertantly contributed to the rise of radical Islam - especially in the modern era. Watchman's discourses on the history of the region (and others) are far superior to mine. It has been more than a few years since I studied the history of what we call the Middle-East and no doubt my memory on certain issues maybe lacking (unfortunatelly my second wife burned most of my notes and lecture papers ... and memory is a tricky thing).

For most Westerners it is the simple answer to a complex question that they most likely will succumb to. It is like the watershed of Hamas being elected over the PLO (PLA ... what ever). Just days before the elections there it became known that the U.S. government had contributed $millions$ to the PLO candidates, so when Hamas became the dominant party the U.S. proclaimed it was because the PLO had been ineffective on providing social services, improvements to the infrastructure, jobs, etc. Not, that the people there voted against the party supported by the USA - Bush that is. See, as in most things to do with the region we tend to oversimplify what we do not understand (or to listen to those that do) by reducing everything to an economic factor . What could be easier. Ignore the realities and point out the economic failings instead - as the all cause for the regions instability.

Today we are again employing the carrot and stick as our only diplomatic tool. We use a phraseology that lauds "democracy", while demonstrating to the world that we no longer feel the necessity to abide by it at home (limitless wiretaps, torture, rendition, gitmo, etc.). We find it conveinient to use terms like "radical islam", or axis of evil (GOP'ers love the word evil - evil empire, the inadvertant evil of disagreeing with the "agenda", the evil peace marchers that only support our enemys'), or to define what we don't agree with as some sorta alien plot to overthrow all we hold near and dear. It is us against them - if only the infidels would understand this - all would be so much better. IT'S THE CORPORATIONS ... STUPID. Our hopes are built on the premise that a corporate secular world is the best hope for changing those that oppose us (and our way of life, presumably - though I imagine jobs might help, not to many Middle Class rebellions. Beside our own, that is) - while still expounding the need for all to be "born again" in the blood of Christ.

We can't help ourselves, I suppose, it is our modern nature to interfere anywhere it is perceived we have economic interests. Humane ones don't count for much, but oil and economy certainly do.

We like to say things like, "Islam has been hi-jacked by radicals". When in fact most of what is occurring today has been a long progression for religious identification and independence (of a sort). At present we sponsor our own news staion Iraq (that few watch because they know where its coming from - Virginia) and we are using a buncha psyche crap that never has worked for us (primarily because those in charge don't have a clue about the culture - or even take the time to learn about it).

The facts do no deter us - they just some times get in the way of the "spin".

As it has so aptly been pointed out - Islam has two primary folds, but hundreds of sub-cults. Just as Christianity does, even so with Judaism. Minor things come into play - interpretations of a line or phrase, that eschew each faction from facing the others truth. It allows for diversity, of a kind, but (generally) bastardises a possibly simple passage into meaning that conveiniently coincides with the ideas or philosophy of the person spouting it.
All religious leaders do it, look how easily a minister floats from the New to Old testiments to prove a point or explain some epiphany that god gave them in a dream.

Maybe, the question ought to have been if Islam can survive its self.

[spmetla]

I think that Islam can survive itself. It's just that because the middle east in general and for the most part has missed out the internal reforms that the Europe has gone through and suddenly when oil became important contact between the these two regions and the immense cultural differences that have grown in the past centuries have had a shock effect. Some embrace the new ideas, others go along but are fairly neutral while others fear change and resort to violence. The "west's" sudden economic interest in the Middle East certainly doesn't help because like anyone else the West wants favorable not fair economics and while it had the power to do so it made this possible and now understandable the formerly exploited hold some resent.

I'm confident that eventually that while regular muslims modernize and change the extremists afraid of change will slowly die out or fade away.

As for the arab conquest, crusades, and the ottoman expansion those are now all just excuses and nothing more. Now one alive now remebers any of these events and they are all just in history books.

And as for the crusades themselves they were started because christians making pilgrimage on their way to Jerusalum were being denied that ability were previously they had been able to. The pope called for a crusade and many replied to that and went. The crusaders that went and actually accomplished something primarily did it for selfish reasons and not just to liberate the "holy land", just look at Bohemond with Antioch or Baldwin's Couty of Edessa. And the turks were defiantely affected by the crusades. The first and second crusades past through Seldjuk terriotry. Antioch and Edessa threatened the Seldjuk and Danishmend turks for many years. Only the mongol invasion weakened the Seldjuks enough for the Ottomans to take over.

I'd love to continue this but then it'd be a monastery thread so I'll just stop myself now.

[Brenus]

Ah, the KabirChobbe I like. More Marxism, less Bushism, it is what we need. The victory of people like Bush (and some extend Bin Laden) is that they oblige people to think like them.

Go back to the roots, economy and power. Even the St Barthelemy was for that. Henri III, last of the Valois dynasty, had no heir (well, he was gay…). His successor was Henri de Navarre, whose mother was nicknamed the Queen of the Protestants. He was himself a protestant and got married with Margot (Have you seen the movie, The Queen Margot?) daughter of Catherine de Medicis. The other head of the Protestants (Admiral Coligny) was also in Paris, so the King decided to eliminate all opposition. So a spontaneous and popular up-rising occurred and all the Protestants were slaughtered. Well, excepted the target, Henri de Navarre escaped and became Henri IV, first of the Bourbon, later… And he was assassinated by a Monk (Ravaillac).
So, yes, war of Religion, but politic ruled like it rules now.

“Still, I remain somewhat entrenched in the premise that Western nations have either directly or inadvertantly contributed to the rise of radical Islam”. Yes, of course. The support to the Saudi, one of the most conservative lecture of the Koran, the perpetual mixing-up of politic and religion (the main members of the PLO were Christian), the real ignorance of what is Islam, al that contributed to the Radicalism of Islam. If you tell every day that the people who defend their land are the Muslim, well all the Muslim are happy. If they are defeated, all Muslim are humiliated and some will go for more extremism.
The Western Countries didn’t help dictatorships only when they were Muslim (Pinochet, Videla, Somoza, Mobutu, etc). But with the so-called shock of the cultures, the identification is more obvious. As a French, I can sympathise with the Chileans, however I a not from this country. So, I won’t go in the Jungle to fight for Chile’s freedom, if there is jungle in Chile. However, as a Muslim, I can identify myself with another Muslim (If I was a Muslim…).

One fact to include is the fall of Communism. Before, it was possible to refer to other big ideology to express yourself in opposition of the US and capitalists. Now, the only refuges available are nationalism and/or religions. When both coincide in a dream like the Uma, it will create extremists. And when it is so obvious than a conventional war can't win, you go from terrorism, the asymmetric war, where the wreakers can win.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn02.html
Maybe Islam needs to be more introspective instead of searching for excuses and blaming others to continue living with a 7th century mentality.

[Faust|]

I would say that almost all, if not all, cases of radicalism arise as a reaction of individuals to PERCEIVED threats, domestic, foreign, or both. That's the source, and viewed in this light watchman's posts and KC's posts are not altogether inconsistent. So a good question pertaining to the issue of this thread would be, are Islam's radicals justified in their stance? I would think attempts to answer would take you deep into the philosophical areas of various subjects.

"I would say that almost all, if not all, cases of radicalism arise as a reaction of individuals to perceived threats, domestic, foreign, or both." This is why I will never be a nationalist... way TOO reactionary. This statement also helps explain why not all Muslims are radicals... the key is "perceived threats".

[Fragony]

The problem with islam is islam. If it is the same in every muslim state, and if it is the same in every western country where they 'enrich' the culture then they must be the problem.

Edited by Ser Clegane: I would appreciate if people spend a minute thinking before posting every offensive thought that happens to wander through their mind

[PanzerJaeger]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.

[rory_20_uk]

PJ, please tell me you're not allowed to vote...

[Fragony]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.

Haven't seen you for a while mia muca, glad to see you are still making sense

[Redleg]

The muslim threat is minimal compared to the danger posed by seemingly sane Westerners such as KC, who believe such trash. They will not be satisfied until the Western World is just as horrible as the islamic world.

This fifth column in our midst does far more hurt western progression and prosperity than their terrorist allies.

I hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

[Faust|]

deleted
-Faust

[KafirChobee]

I hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

Wellllllll, I certainly do attempt to provoke a response to my queries - that is true. And, i am always curious to about the responses that my questions provoke. However, the idea that my ideas, concepts, questions, philosophys' or provocations are somehow mute? Or, to be ignored? Well, only the ignorant accept one concept as an absolute - never challenging it, never questioning it, or wondering why it makes it the true belief.

So, Redleg, raise thy hand and say "seige heil!" Isn't that what are you are saying? Or, is it simply that if a person disagrees with you .... they should be ignored? Sounds about right.

[Redleg]

Wellllllll, I certainly do attempt to provoke a response to my queries - that is true. And, i am always curious to about the responses that my questions provoke. However, the idea that my ideas, concepts, questions, philosophys' or provocations are somehow mute? Or, to be ignored? Well, only the ignorant accept one concept as an absolute - never challenging it, never questioning it, or wondering why it makes it the true belief.

Extremists regardless of thier postion on the political spectrum are best ignored - or has several others in this thread of shown, that their position is based upon their own ignorance and fear. Others with far more knowledge of the Middle-East and Islam have shown how ignorant and off-base your initial premise is, and therefor its time to just ignore it. The premise of this thread is very telling given the nature of the term Kafir that is in your name as it relates to Islam.

However you should of stopped right there with your comments.

So, Redleg, raise thy hand and say "seige heil!" Isn't that what are you are saying? Or, is it simply that if a person disagrees with you .... they should be ignored? Sounds about right.

You might want to stop reading Michael Moore and other Liberial bloggers, this is the typical tactic of the far left - accuse others of being something because they chose to ignore your arguement.

Disagreement does not mean that one is raising their hand spouting Nazi doctrine, nor does ignoring an arguement mean anything other then I find your arguement not worthy of discussion.

Bring an arguement that is worthy of discussion. One that does not resort in your normal desire to call other of opposing views Nazi's or facists, like before when you called my ancestor's facists that, a classic blunder again on your part. It seems that once again you have made yourself your own worse enemy.

Your showing yourself to be a extremist, extremists should be ingored and ridiculed for what they are, ignorant knuckleheads.

Edit: because I just could not resist something that I stumbled across in my readings and forgotten until now that is relative to the nature of this thread. It actually explains a lot about how incorrect the nature of your premise and comments truely are in this thread, and why you often resort to triades, insults, and rants in your attempts at communicating with the rest of us.

[Ser Clegane]

Please refrain from making such silly nazi-comparisons - they insult the poeple they are directed at and at the same time tend to trivialize the crimes that have been committed by the "real" Nazis.

[KafirChobee]

Extremists regardless of thier postion on the political spectrum are best ignored - or has several others in this thread of shown, that their position is based upon their own ignorance and fear. Others with far more knowledge of the Middle-East and Islam have shown how ignorant and off-base your initial premise is, and therefor its time to just ignore it. The premise of this thread is very telling given the nature of the term Kafir that is in your name as it relates to Islam.

However you should of stopped right there with your comments.

Disagreement does not mean that one is raising their hand spouting Nazi doctrine, nor does ignoring an arguement mean anything other then I find your arguement not worthy of discussion.

Bring an arguement that is worthy of discussion. One that does not resort in your normal desire to call other of opposing views Nazi's or facists, like before when you called my ancestor's facists that, a classic blunder again on your part. It seems that once again you have made yourself your own worse enemy.

Your showing yourself to be a extremist, extremists should be ingored and ridiculed for what they are, ignorant knuckleheads.

Edit: because I just could not resist something that I stumbled across in my readings and forgotten until now that is relative to the nature of this thread. It actually explains a lot about how incorrect the nature of your premise and comments truely are in this thread, and why you often resort to triades, insults, and rants in your attempts at communicating with the rest of us.

OK, first, KAFIR is an Arabic insult flung at those whom have not been enlightened by Muhamad (sp) and found Allah to be the one true god. It means infidel - or Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. So, I'm not exactly sure what the point here was Red - unless it was to somehow signify my conformance to Islam? Or, was it to demonstrate a (my) non-existent disdain for a culture that most westerners refuse to understand - try to remember I spent 6 years in the late 70's and early 80's studying and writing papers on Middle-East affairs. Regardless, I chose the name Kafir not to be offensive (as some names connote), but ....... well, why not? Redleg, I suppose is just a bird? Or is it reference to the "Redlegs" of Civil War attrocities - I mean the Cincinnati Reds shortened their name to be pollitically correct correct back in the 60's. Regardless, what is in a name?

You keep referring to your family, and my calling them Nazis ... when in fact I queried if they were racists - after you commented that one of your ancestors was a founder of the KKK, or a leader in it or some such. It really is getting old though that every time I am accused of being an extremist, or knucklehead, wrong-think, or that my arguements are not worthy of discussion.

On this subject, "the problem with islam", I opened discussion to why islam is the way it is. And, on why so many good people of islamic faith have gone to the darker side of it - I don't believe I have accused the religion of being subversive (as have some) or proclaimed that Jesus is the one true god (or is that Jehova, the name that cannot be spoken, etc?).

Most that have actually had something to say on topic have given me a variation of approaches, perceptions, histories, and analogies that have been somewhat enlightening. Though I do not find all of them as well thoughtout as others, all have been atleast honest. Versus personal attacks against me, or a religion some refuse to even perceive as not being one of terrorism. As one put it, Islam has been hi-jacked just as other religions have to support political beliefs - and/or perceived threats (as another mentioned - a very good one actually, hadn't given much thought to that premise).

Railing against me, calling me an extremist, accusing me of insulting ancestors .... well, what ever rings your bell. Versus actually commenting on topic, or hurling insults, or insinuations that I won't be satisfied 'til we (US)collapse to the level of poverty the majority of Muslims live in. Thing is, seems (to me) there are just as many religious extremists in the Christian community as there are in the Islamic one. It is simply a matter of perception.

[Redleg]

OK, first, KAFIR is an Arabic insult flung at those whom have not been enlightened by Muhamad (sp) and found Allah to be the one true god. It means infidel - or Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. So, I'm not exactly sure what the point here was Red - unless it was to somehow signify my conformance to Islam? Or, was it to demonstrate a (my) non-existent disdain for a culture that most westerners refuse to understand - try to remember I spent 6 years in the late 70's and early 80's studying and writing papers on Middle-East affairs. Regardless, I chose the name Kafir not to be offensive (as some names connote), but ....... well, why not? Redleg, I suppose is just a bird? Or is it reference to the "Redlegs" of Civil War attrocities - I mean the Cincinnati Reds shortened their name to be pollitically correct correct back in the 60's. Regardless, what is in a name?

Not even close to what I meant with the comment, but nice try, if one is only looking at the insult aspects of the term Kafir. To be completely forthcoming there is another insulting meaning for the term Kafir that stems from South Africa also.

The writings on Islam as presented by yourself in this thread would fit the orginial meaning of Kifar as it relates to Islam..

KafirKafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth.

A very fitting describtion of some of your posts in this thread.

You keep referring to your family, and my calling them Nazis ... when in fact I queried if they were racists - after you commented that one of your ancestors was a founder of the KKK, or a leader in it or some such. It really is getting old though that every time I am accused of being an extremist, or knucklehead, wrong-think, or that my arguements are not worthy of discussion.

your memory must be failing - I never stated that my family had an ancestor that was a founder of the KKK - you seem to have confused yourself about what I have written. My father however is a bigot, a racist if you will - whom I have been educating that racial make-up of the individual is not important, but the individual's behavior. Being the son of a racist however does not make one a nazi, nor does it makes one's ancestors a bunch of facists.

If you don't like certain accusation and comments in return then maybe you should first lay off of the extremist comparssions that you often attempt.

On this subject, "the problem with islam", I opened discussion to why islam is the way it is. And, on why so many good people of islamic faith have gone to the darker side of it - I don't believe I have accused the religion of being subversive (as have some) or proclaimed that Jesus is the one true god (or is that Jehova, the name that cannot be spoken, etc?).

And your post was responded to by people far more educated then I in Islam and they have shown where your premise is incorrect, therefor I had no reason to disprove your premise since it has been done by others.

Most that have actually had something to say on topic have given me a variation of approaches, perceptions, histories, and analogies that have been somewhat enlightening. Though I do not find all of them as well thoughtout as others, all have been atleast honest. Versus personal attacks against me, or a religion some refuse to even perceive as not being one of terrorism. As one put it, Islam has been hi-jacked just as other religions have to support political beliefs - and/or perceived threats (as another mentioned - a very good one actually, hadn't given much thought to that premise).

You should write like this more often - its more apporiate for the discussion that you initially seem to want to have.

Railing against me, calling me an extremist, accusing me of insulting ancestors .... well, what ever rings your bell. Versus actually commenting on topic, or hurling insults, or insinuations that I won't be satisfied 'til we (US)collapse to the level of poverty the majority of Muslims live in. Thing is, seems (to me) there are just as many religious extremists in the Christian community as there are in the Islamic one. It is simply a matter of perception.

Actually you have done all that I stated - but don't let that prevent you from attempting to escape responsiblity. Nor have I stated that you want to see the United States fail, not in a direct way. If you don't like the language and responses you get, don't use the method initially. Shall we review the initial rounds of this conversation.

The first being that I informed Panzer that he would be better served to ignore you, not even an accusation of wrong or insulting you at all.

Lets see the quote exactly.

hope you do realize the KafirChobee writes such material (and cuts and pastes from certain sites) the type of subject matter that he does to provoke such a response from those with political idealoge opinions opposite from his own.

If you would allow his rants to go unanswered or better yet show where his points are mote, ridiculous or so far off base as several others have done in this particlure thread - you points would be better served.

Nowhere was there an attack on you by myself in this comment. Telling Panzer that his points would be better served if he ignored your rants - is not insulting you at all. However you decided to take issue with the statement with the little "seige heil" comment which was completely uncalled for. It was actually an attempt to prevent the direction that you chose to go with in your response to me. To bad that in your desire to have another confrontation with me - you missed the actual message in my post.

Futhermore, you didn't like my retort in response I see, well you might want to notice something from our previous exchanges, that and review your own. You will notice something if you pay attention, I normally respond in the matter in which I am being treated in the post.

If you want honest intellectual discussion then treat the discussion as an honest discussion. Nazi comparassion and the like are not honest attempts, nor will they be responded to in a polite manner.

[KafirChobee]

Kafir, n. [from Arabic, kafir, infidel, from kafara, to be skeptical of religion. an unbeliever, infidel]
1. a South African Bantu.
2. the language of Kaffirs.
3. A non-muslim: term of contempt used by Muslims.
4. A Kaffir
[Webster's 20th century unabridged dictionary - is old though, 1967, is also the pre-edited or editors edition]
One can look up Redlegs anywhere on the net, btw. But, as I said before - what is in a name?

This is not about names, or name calling - go back to my last post and comment on the issue here. Not on your personal attacks about and against me. Thank you.

[Redleg]

Kafir, n. [from Arabic, kafir, infidel, from kafara, to be skeptical of religion. an unbeliever, infidel]
1. a South African Bantu.
2. the language of Kaffirs.
3. A non-muslim: term of contempt used by Muslims.
4. A Kaffir
[Webster's 20th century unabridged dictionary - is old though, 1967, is also the pre-edited or editors edition]
One can look up Redlegs anywhere on the net, btw. But, as I said before - what is in a name?



This is not about names, or name calling - go back to my last post and comment on the issue here. Not on your personal attacks about and against me. Thank you.

Again most of your premise has been debunk and even your last post has been answered in the context of what you posted. Are you having a problem accepting responsiblity for your own statements?

[Leet Eriksson]

Not to intrude in the pleasant debate in this thread, but KafirChobee's definition is more correct.

A Kafir is someone whose not a muslim, not someone who hides, covers or denies the truth, we call these Munafiq (منافق), or Munafiqoon (منافقون) [Plural].

[Byzantine Mercenary]

wasn't there a time when it was just the pagans who were the infidels not all the non muslims? did muhammed even ever call christians infidels?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Christians and Jews are People of the Book, according to the Koran we all follow the same God.

Ultimately Islamic extremists do not bother me. Non-Europeans still make up less than 10% of the population by quite a way. Until they hold a majoriety they aren't a threat to me. What worries me more is the extreme Christian-nationalistic backlash some Muslims are creating in Europe. I came to the conclusion that there would be a religious war a few years ago, by the time the Danish Cartoons thing happened I'd knocked ten years of my count-down.

The problem with many Muslims in Europe is that they are clearly Muslims before they are anything else. This offends the European sensability which says your nation comes before your religion. Added to that there is an obvious culture clash, which clearly is religious.

At my University you can tell the Middle Eastern Christians from the Muslims because you can communicate with them.

In England we have a saying, "Don't talk about politics, religion or football."

In Britian Muslims kick up a huge fuss about the first two and the rest of us don't like it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In England we have a saying, "Don't talk about politics, religion or football."

In Britian Muslims kick up a huge fuss about the first two and the rest of us don't like it.

...Because it takes away the the focus from arguments on the third?