quote:There are Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists, Hindu terrorists, Aetheist terrorists, etc. The common denominator is not a religion, but rather the belief that one's own view is the only acceptable view and all other views should be annihilated.
posted
It can be dangerous to use generalities. OSC said "the Muslim people", lumping all Muslims into one single group and saying that they have a "love affair with terrorism". That, in my mind, is like saying that "the American people have a love affair with violence and sex" (just look at our media). Both statements are, in my opinion, highly loaded statements, which, when used as sweeping generalities, do far more harm than good.
I agree that the totalitarian states are suffering from problems of their own making and that the problems that exist in the Middle East today are primarilly because of past misunderstandings and wrongs. However, the problems in the Middle East do not justify blanket stereotyping of any particular religious group.
posted
It was not so long ago that right wing commentators would speak admiringly of Islamic Theocracy. "If someone steals, they cut off their hand" and whatnot. Of course, now they are the oppressed poster child of the left wing. Not that they, looking at us, realize that there is a left or a right.
Of course, this essay presumes that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror- a concept the media does not seem to be permitting. They are more interested in linking it to Vietnam.
Edit: by the way, I think the two paragraphs quoted out of context as they are (I didn't see the ellipsis on first reading) do make Scott APPEAR to be a maniacal warmonger. Perhaps next time you should supply a link to the entire article. FWIW.
posted
I am not saying that "we" are guilty of attacking Islam, or that Isreal is guilty of humiliating the Islamic soldiers.
I am not saying that the dictators and authoritarian rule is our fault, though some of the fault does lie with the western colonial powers who did such a poor job of nation building when they left.
I am just saying, from the Islamic Clerical point of view, Islam is under attack culturally from the west, and has been for a long time.
They are striving to defend it, and doing it the wrong way. If Palestine would stop the Intafata, the Sharon government would collapse in weeks. If Islamic organizations and governments would invest in industries and improvements in Palestine, the lives of the Palestineans would improve much faster and much further than if Isreal changed any of its policies. If the unified muslims of the region went on strike, much of Israel's economy would come to a screeching halt.
But these things won't happen because Arafat needs the guns to keep his people in line and other leaders of Islamic countries need the "Demon Jews" to keep their people focused away from the depravations found in their own countries.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
*walks away, hating the state of things and feeling helpless to do anything about them*
You know, I think for the most part every president has tried to do what they thought best. Those policies have differed, and sometimes been shortsighted, and sometimes been wildly inappropriate. But no one wishes ill for these people.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am not saying that the dictators and authoritarian rule is our fault,
I do say it is partially the fault of the US and the G8 nations. Cold War geopolitics and enormous business interests have led the US and other G8 nations to make deals with the devil.
The Shah of Iran was propped up for decades via US support, before he was overthrown by the Iranian revolution in the 70s. It's one reason many Iranians hate the US so much.
The US, France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain (among others) sold Saddam massive amounts of munitions, planes, helicopters, tanks, and technology allowing him to make poison gas (which he used against Iraqi Kurds), all of which he used to keep his boot on Iraqi necks. Many Western nations supported him in his insane and pointless war with Iran, a war that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians their lives, I think with no change in the Iraq/Iran border, because of fear of the Iranian theocracy. Many countries sold arms to both sides in the conflict!
It was all good. Then in 1990, after 2 decades of repressive and murderous rule, Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was thrown out, of course, but not overthrown, largely because that would upset the Muslim Kings and Tyrants who were are allies in Gulf I. Then he had another decade of tyranny--again the repression was good (to Western government eyes), until intelligence of weapons programs that could potentially harm the US or Europe surfaced, which led to Gulf II.
This is why I take the oft-thrown about statements that the Gulf II was "for the good of the Iraqis" with many spoons of salt.
That's why the only way I could agree with Amka's statements following is with some major provisos.
quote:You know, Those policies have differed, and sometimes been shortsighted, and sometimes been wildly inappropriate. But no one wishes ill for these people.
Amka
I think for the most part every president has tried to do what they thought best for the American people and/or the American business community. In many cases, American presidents act solely to benefit business, with little or no concern for how it might affect the american people. The wants, needs, and democrattic aspirations of foreigners are emphatically not our problem, though we give them much cynical lip service.
But no one wishes ill for these people.--Few in power care less about oppressed people in foreign lands, and indeed, support their opressors. The people in charge in the US and other G8 nations support dictators throughout the world in oppressing their people. The naked and Machievellian realpolitick and capitalism combined with smarmy, feel-good (yet do nothing concrete) rhetoric should sicken us all, but few Americans know or care what happens outside of our borders, as long as an unending stream of cheap DVD players, cars, and oil keeps flowing in, we are fat and happy.
There were and are plenty of Arabic and Muslim dictators that enjoy cozy relations with the US, our NATO allies, Russia and Japan.The US and other Great Powers find it advantageous to deal with tyrants in the Middle East and elsewhere. No wonder there is great hatred, anger, and violence against us by Muslims and Muslim terrorists.
posted
There is a fellow who is wanted for bombing an abortion clinic here in Birmingham, a bombing in which at least one person died. A Christian terrorist. Last I heard he was hiding out in the North Carolina mountains, being helped by locals to elude police and obviously being given food and shelter of some kind.
Christian terrorists.
Islam is a religion of peace. The idea that Islam is at fault is a dangerous and xenophobic one. It, at a stroke, makes enemies of millions of people who are our natural allies. Peaceful good lawful people. Islam is certainly not at fault. Statements like the one you quote of Uncle Orson's upset me quite a lot.
We must find the connections between us and strengthen them, all the good people worldwide. The vast majority of people who are good. Xenophobia is the worst thing we can give in to.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
You really ought to read "In the Presence of Thine Enemies" by Gracia Burnham. She, of course, was a missionary on vacation in Phillipines when she and her husband were taken hostage for over a year by Islam terrorists. He was killed in the rescue.
Anyway -- in the book she puts in a lot of dialogue about conversations they had with the Muslims which held them prisoner. It gave me a great deal of insight on the mind of a Muslim terrorist (understand -- I am not saying ALL Muslims -- I have Islamic friends, too -- but I'm strictly talking about the terroristic extremists of their religion).
They made it very clear that they DID want a complete world war to cleanse all the world of the "infidels" (anyone who does not worship as they do). Although they would agree with her that stealing, cheating, etc. were wrong in their religion, they did NOT see what they were doing to her and her husband (kidnapping them) was wrong, because they were "infidels" (unbelievers) and that justified it under Islamic law. (the way they interpreted it). There are many, many quotes from them about this.
I think it is a must-read for anyone wanting to hear how terrorists actually think. The Burnhams learned alot during their time of captivity.
quote: The idea that Allah demands his followers to cleanse the earth of all non-Muslims is not one found in mainstream Islam
I would modify to say that this is not found in WESTERN HEMISPHERE Islam. A great deal of the predominantly Islamic countries do feel this way. There is a great deal of difference between what you might hear in the Islamic community here in the United States, and what you might hear in eastern-hemisphere countries.
posted
Ak, if you are talking about Eric Rudolph he was arrested a short time ago (6-10 weeks). He is also under indictment for other bombings in Atlanta, including the Centennial Park bombing during the Olympics, and 1 or 2 gay nightclub bombings. I'm very happy Rudolph was busted.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
As much as I deeply wish it were so, we cannot solve the worlds ills by being simply by being happy nice to everyone. I do recognize that there are many Muslims who are peace oriented. I know that OSC does too, as he spoke to many of them in Israel and his articles are more about how the peace loving Muslims need to get a backbone and take back their culture. Because right now, in the Middle East, the policy of most of the Muslim theocracies is to support terrorism.
We must consider facts, not what should be the case. Not what the world would be if everyone strove to be good based on whatever their beliefs says is good.
The fact is, is that the Muslim religion has not yet matured to the point where the concept of infidels is considered outmoded. There are many within that religion who have matured to that point, but I am not sure if they are in the majority.
Christianity was there only recently, with the Crusades and slavery of the blacks. What was majority opinion within Christianity is now an outcast minority opinion.
We cannot tolerate any philosophy that leads to evil behavior, simply for the sake of showing acceptance to a religion. I think it is quite valid for us to say that the Muslim world must reject the philosophies of the less than human status of infidels and Jihad. These philosophies, if not majority, account for the most
There are people who are evil in this world who will remain evil no matter how good you are to them. There is a point where it is not worth it to try and rehabilitate them, only necessary to stop them. I've seen you plead for tolerance for individuals when you are not even aware of the great pain they have caused.
I've learned in this life, very painfully, that a friendly face and a respectful attitude doesn't necessarily mean they have good intentions or respect you. Instead, it can mean that they are trying to take advantage of you in the most heinous way and they know how they can manipulate you.
I still am more rather than less trusting of people I meet, but I will not defend evil doers simply because they are nice to me.
posted
Perhaps I didn't state my question well. I'll try again. I am specifically interested in the thought processes of people who believe that their religion is the only true one and yet also believe that the basic reason for Muslim fundamentalism is one of religion. It's important to me to understand the various sides of the issue and this seems to be a prevelant perspective on this issue that I just don't understand. I am hoping that someone can explain to me how people can believe something that is not true, but believe it only because they believe it. That is, it is not because of other factors such as psychological or them being deceived.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whom do you take as your model for Islam? I think that makes all the difference. Muslims who think Pat Robertson represents mainstream Christianity (after all he is on the the television, he has many supporters, etc.) might come to the same conclusions about Christianity. That it is a violent religion with smiles on the front but underneath it teaches hate. All I ask is that you judge Islam as a religion in the same way you judge Christianity. When you do that you will realize that it isn't the religion that's the problem, but rather, it's the same problem that we always grapple with in every country of the world and among every religion and creed, among all ethnicities. It's people's ignorance and xenophobia and fear.
There is no "them", only "us". If there is a way through the problems of the middle east, it is by understanding that we are all "us".
[ November 07, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of things said in this thread really sicken me. I'm not even going to attack all of the things that are either blatantly incorrect or just plain misinformed. I half expect a few to say, "that's because you know you'd lose the debate." Well, you'd be kinda rightit's hard to win a debate with a bigot.
Islam has, historically, treated non-Muslims better than any Western religion has non-affiliates of their respective religions (including land ownership and civil rights). Islam has, historically, treated women better than any Western religion ("Oh, but things are so bad today!"). Islam has been far less warlike than the Christian churchbut that's just the Roman Catholic church, so it doesn't apply to the Western Protestant majority, right?
Keep on righteously pointing out "flaws" in Islam. For the really bad stuff, you can use the caveat where you claim it's not all Muslims, just those extreme fundementalistsafter all, you have friends that are Muslim, no (not just pointed at you, farmgirl, you're just the only one to have posted it instead of just thinking it)?
Muslimsthe niggers of the Tewnty-First Century.
If I sound upset about it, that's because I am. It seems people can't talk about Islam today without it being in the pejorative.
Who wants to start a positive thread?
Algebrawouldn't exist today if Islam had not developed it.
Architecturethe concept of the arch as a structural support would not be around if you-know-who hadn't used it.
Anyone like Greek literature and art? They'd be things of myth and speculation had Islam not preserved it.
Salinization techniqueshow many people knew that there were salinization facilities built centuries ago by Muslims that still exist today (not to mention the qanat)?
The rosaryyeah... Islam gave that to Catholicism (though I'm sure that could be twisted).
Universitiesthree guesses where the world's first universities were. (hint: the first word is "Middle" and the second is "East")
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto I don't disagree with anything in your post.
I don't think we are going out of our way to point out "flaws" in Islam -- we are trying to answer the points in the original post of the thread.
Obviously, as you say, there are flaws in ALL things -- all religions, all peoples. There are extremists in all those areas. (Just look at the OKC Bombing -- done by good old white American extremists). MrSquicky was asking about those who believe they are "the only true religion" -- which, of course, is extremist. (thought about saying something here about how the Mormons feel about only them having priesthood rights, but then thought better of it -- leave that for another day).
In all religions, cultures and groups, you probably will find people who take it to extremes. These are the ones that OSC is saying in his column believe that an all-out world war is necessary. Hopefully, it will never happen.
The passage the MrSquicky quoted said, in part:
quote: The terrorists want a world war between all of Islam and everybody else
So OSC was only talking about terrorists -- not general population or general believers.
posted
What other factors are there to belief, other than believing truth, believing what you want to believe, or being decieved (though not necessarily purposefully)?
Religion: a group of people who share a specific set of beliefs. It may be highly organized or simply a label to define a set of beliefs. For instance Mormonism (highly organized) vs Taoism (if I understand correctly, it is against the tenets of Taoism to even say you have a set of beliefs. It is all illusion.)
Being a member of the One True Religion (in my beliefs) I can say that what truely sets us apart as "The One" is authority from God to act on his behalf, rather than what truths we have. We sit very comfortably with other people having those same truths as well as truths we may not have and hope they are spread. In our last article of faith it states:
quote: We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
As far as what people believe that is in error, they will continue to believe it until it is proven false to them. This may not be until after they die. There is no magic to it. If it works for them, they will believe it until they come across something that rings more true to them.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, you are over reacting and assuming things. Calling people bigots is just plain stupid and stops a discussion cold in its tracks.
I'm very well aware of all the good that Islam has done. For the whole time Christianity was in the dark ages, Islam was experiencing a cultural enlightenment that was wonderful and brought us a lot of good. We do not know how much knowledge we destroyed when our ancestors went in and methodically took down everything that was Muslim in Spain. We may very well have set ourselves back centuries.
But no matter how enlightened they were then, or many of them are still today, the fact remains that those people who bomb random targets (a school bus once) in Israel and who methodically planned and carry out flying planes into buildings, call themselves Muslims. It was the Muslims in Afganistan that destroyed every Buddhist monument, including many that were historical.
It just so happens that the beginnings of Islam was violent and emperial, and it was a theocracy. In the same class I learned of all the wonderful good Islam did, I also learned that they had a policy (unless the infidels were Jewish or Christian) of convert or die while they were conquering Asia.
A bigot would hate a person simply because they are Muslim. If you think that describes me, because I can list all of the bad that people who act as Muslims have done and are currently doing, then you are very wrong.
I don't know, maybe when a religion hits about the 1000 year mark they go through a period where they are extremely violent.
Beware the Mormons in about 800 years.
BTW, my husband, Vladimir, will tell you that it wasn't the Muslims who invented terrorism. It was the Russians.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do disagree with my post, Farmgirl. You just don't vehemently disagree. Card directly and intentionally misrepresents Islam and is careful to include the "fundementalists" and "extremists" words in there to keep it from sounding too general, even though all he uses is generalities. So have quite a few in this thread.
How the heck is that any different than saying, "I can't stand those niggers. There's a difference between a black person and a nigger, though... I have friends who are black." In a sentence like that, the person is still generalizing about all blacks, but is unconsciously making sure to not paint their generality into a rhetorical corner. It's easy to say "but I didn't mean all blacks" when challenged after saying such a thing, but the truth is that the image portrayed was a generalization from the start, that had the condition tossed in afterwards that there may be some people you don't look at that way. It still implies a generalization, but leaves a nice, clean hole to wiggle out of when confronted.
Let me stop for a minute and clarify two things: 1) Farmgirl has not disparaged blacks or used the dirty "N" word at all, and 2) I'm using blacks as my rhetorical example because it is only a recent social stigma to openly disparage blacks as a single group, yet it seems perfectly acceptable to disparage Islam as long as one uses the proper caveats.
You see, Farmgirl, I'm pretty sure that no one here has some image of a savage, vicious brute in their heads when they think the word "Islam" to themselves. I'm fairly certain OSC doesn't, either. However, what I am certain of is that a great many people who have posted in this thread have not talked about Islam in any other manner than references to the terrorists groups who wave Islam as their religious banner. This isn't a cause, but rather a symptom of a reflexive Western generalized idea about Islam, not that it is strictly one of violence and hate and inequality, but that it is intrinsically inferior. Part of it comes from religious ties creating resentment, but a lot of it has to do with an adversarial approach in the first place, and I don't mean on the side of Islam.
Example: in the year 2003 on Hatrack, I don't believe I have seen one thread discussing a thing about Islam that was not in the context of war, terrorism, or fighting.
There is already a general Western view of Islam, whether it's admitted or not. This leads to more discussion about the "problems" people have with it, which in turn strengthens that general view. It's a self-sustaining, propagating process of underlying prejudice that will continue because not only do most people don't want it to stop (because Islam is not the "One True Religion" to them), but because it's easier to feel comfortable with all the other people saying those things when it's believed.
And who wants to be uncomfortable?
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I won't apologize for what I said. Too many things said here are just outright prejudiced.
Want me to start pointing out intolerances within the Christian church? How about the Mormon church? (and please don't say there weren't/aren't any... I'm not going to because I don't really care to start drawing that kind of line in the sand)
The fact that you are equating the poor social and civil environments in the region of the Middle East directly to Islam shows your bias, Ami. I'm not calling you a bigot, but I am calling the way you paint the picture bigoted. I'm asking you to look at why you are pointing it out as if it were Islam that was the cause, and not outside oppression in every single case.
And it isn't some "1000 year mark" that is causing the situation in the Mid-East. It's the couple centuries of Western (almost entirely European) colonialism and mistreatment that had created the powder keg over there, not some sappy religious aging process. England and France are the ones we can thank for much of the border squabbles and such. Oil (and its increased usefulness) has contributed to the continued focus on the region, else the nations would have been left alone to try and recover back in the early 1900s. The nations were already struggling, then a commodity was found, they were taken advantage of some more, and they had no choice but to accept it, because they were dirt poor. The reasons for the current state of the Mid East have less to do with religion and more to do with politics. Until people can stop trying to equate those problems with Islam, Ami, you are right: the discussion pretty much stops dead.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Leto, is not that _I_ am equating these problems with Islam, but that the terrorists themselves are doing it not in the name of their region which was (I agree) so poorly handled by the Europeans, but in the name of their religion.
I agree, that much of this problem wouldn't exist without colonialism,oil, and cold war battlegrounds, but it is not such a simple problem.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I am genuinely ignorant about many of the things you said about Islam and would like to know more. Not so much about the university and algebra, but the comparisons between the history of Islam and that of Christianity. Do you have sources that you could direct me to, on- or offline, so that I could find out more?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mormons" and Muslims have a lot in common. So much that I pretty well believe that Mohammed had much of the Gospel revealed, but because for several generations no written copies of the Koran were allowed, much was lost. (I'm thinking I remember this, I could be wrong). The Hadith are just a mess. Sources vary from a few thousand to a quarter million verses, and within one generation the followers found themselves deeply divided.
Clearly, Muslims don't believe in a Redeemer. They honor Jesus as a noteworthy prophet. So that's the most important difference as it has come down through the ages. But I believe Mohammed did speak with the Angel Gabriel. Much of their rituals and ordinances reverberate the those of the "Mormons". Also, we believe in a living prophet whereas Muslims see Mohammed as the last and crowning prophet.
Muslims believe they are the one true church because of their concrete edifice of lasting truth. "Mormons" believe they are the one true church because they have an ever changing cannon and an ability to respond to what is going on in the world. But both believe people can and should work toward becoming more Godly. And both believe in marital happiness in the life to come.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of the things I have are not online (that should be a big surprise). However, I suggest looking first in your local library, then doing a bit of looking in some of the larger book chains (Borders and the like) for their wider selection. I don't think there are any that do direct comparisons between the history of Christianity versus the history of Islam, though I'm more that a little sure that there are many that have overlapping subject matter (and not just the parts where they fight).
What you may want to do is, instead of looking for books on Islam, look for historical overviews of the entire region, including northern Africa. You'll probably find a lot more info there for how the histories of that region and Europe have related to each other.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only just seen this thread, and it makes me feel tired, and hurt, and defensive.
OSC implies that the Muslim people (and I take that to mean all Muslims, not just those in Muslim-ruled states) have a "current love affair with terrorism," and that "total war" is the only cure for it. Frankly, that's rubbish on both counts. Okay, here's the deal. It's the 1970s, the height of the Cold War. In Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Sudan and other Muslim-ruled nations, pro-democratic, liberal groups are on the rise, challenging the one-party states or theocracies in which they live. The US and Britain, for Cold War reasons, in all those cases gave money to the government and encouraged them to repress the "rebels." Since then, liberalism has been essentially off the political agenda - there is no voice from the left in the Middle East. The only opposition - real opposition - to corrupt, inefficient governments is from the religious right. In Egypt, it's the Muslim Brothers and far right Muslim groups that actually provide welfare services to the people - the government, in general, does not. In such a climate, is it any wonder that those who oppose the government do so in the name of Islam? Islam is, in the Middle East, more than a religion - it's a unifying ideology - you might be a liberal, or a conservative, but the chances are you'll be a Muslim, and so if someone tells you "Islam is the solution" you'll put aside your differences of interpretation and join them. And as I've said, there are no alternatives, thanks to the repression of both secular and Islamic liberalism. So what do we do? Here, I'm an optimist. If South Africa can manage a transition of power without total meltdown, so can the Middle East - and on that very model. A democratic power-sharing arrangement in Iraq, or indeed Iran, with the consent of all parties, with promises to make real gains for the people, might just work. But people's lives have got to improve, or the democratic experiment will fail. Ultimately, people in the Middle East and Africa associate democracy with real, financial and social progress for themselves, their families and their communities. Without this, democracy is just a word. Total war will not give the Muslim people democracy. It will only create chaos and resentment and even more hatred than there already is.
I'm talking very casually here, but I'm writing this on the basis of a careful study of Middle East politics, and not just on the basis of my own beliefs. I would recommend Fred Halliday, Katerina Dalacoura and John Esposito's work on Islam and politics in the region for anyone who wants to follow up what I've said here. Karen Armstrong's "A history of God" is also very good on the spread of Islam and the treatment of minorities in Islamic states.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. There are many, but none of the titles jump to mind. Since I don't own all of them, I can't just shoot them off. Amira mentions some good names to look for, though.
A couple titles I can suggest:
Islam between East and West Aliya Izetbegovic
The Way of Islam Ruqaiyyah Maqsood
Others are usually textbooks or similar books on regions, geography, or history (you can find nice throwaways sometimes).
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here are some hints on how to think of the Islamic word.
Don't.
The problems of the people of Palestein and the people of Turkey and the people of Bangladesh are all different. Their histories are different. Their characters are different.
Think about it. The one unifying thing holding them all together happened over 600 years ago, and what exactly that was is in debate.
600 years ago in the US, Columbus wasn't due for almost a hundred years.
600 years ago in Europe th Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church ruled everywhere in the west. Does that mean that England and France, Spain and the Basque region are all on one united front?
Now the responce a group of Islamic terrorists give to the question, "Do you want a cleansing of the earth, of fire and death sent by Allah, to remove all non-believers?" is going to be the same as a group of the Klan will give to "Do you want a cleansing of the earth, of fire and death, sent by God, to remove all the lesser races?".
That doesn't mean we blame all white men for wanting to start an all out war.
To answer the first question, if you believe you have the truth you have three options that I can see.
1) You can keep it to yourself and feel all smug. 2) You can try to show others the truth. 3) You can force others to believe as you do, and kill the rest.
If the truth has any real value, then option 2, and only option 2 is worth while.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to respond to something that has been bugging me all weekend.
Anne Kate said:
quote: There is no "them", only "us". If there is a way through the problems of the middle east, it is by understanding that we are all "us".
As if, my statement on how religion has been involved in the middle east is what I think of a group of people. I have never thought it was us vs them, though there are a number of people who I believe to be evil and incapable of rehibilitation, and these particular people must be stopped. But in no way do I believe this to be a condition of their religion. It is a condition of their own choice, though they hold to an idea that does come from their religion.
No one can convince me that the idea of Jihad is not evil. Nor can they convince me that it is not deeply tied to the Muslim religion. That does not mean that I think the Muslim religion is evil, nor does it mean that I think the majority of Muslims subscribe to this particular idea. Slavery and Divine Right were both deeply evil ideas that were intimately tied to Christianity. Christianity is much better off without them.
The world cannot be boiled down to sweet little sayings like "There is no "them", only "us". " You might reply "But it is true, we are all children of God." And that is true, and I will agree with you, but that does not mean that we are all acting out of the same motivations.
Anne Kate, you are making your little prounouncement to someone who has exhorted people to realize that as intimately as God knows and loves you, He knows and loves the serial killer. And of course, the terrorist.
posted
Amka, I'm sorry, but your view of the concept of Jihad just isn't the way it's thought of in most interpretations of Islam. Jihad means "striving in the way of Allah," and has two parts. The lesser Jihad is taking up arms to defend Islam or Muslim states against aggressors. Wars of conquest are, as far as I know, forbidden by the Qur'an (although there are varying interpretations). The greater Jihad is an internal struggle - to subdue the evil within us, if you will, and to strive to be good Muslims. In my view, there is no point trying to defend Islam against outside aggressors if there is evil in your own heart that you're not fighting. I think that the view that all non-Muslims should be killed is evil, but I don't think that Islam engenders that view, and I would advise very strongly against using the term "Jihad" to refer to that view - it's inaccurate and I think Muslims would be right to find it offensive.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Jihad" is a buzz term used in the Western world to equate "holy war" to anything to do with terrorists who are Muslim, Amira.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is important to be clear on precisely what Card said. In the context of all I've read by him on this subject, I think his view is that most terrorism comes from Muslim states, not that most Muslims are terrorists. Remember that "many" is a relative term, I think that, by it, Card means that there are enough terrorist supporters to have a significant influence on politics in the Middle East. I don't think he was talking about Islam in general, nor saying that there is anything unique about Islam that makes it house terrorists.
It is similar to this. One could well say that most polygamists in the US are Mormon (using that word in its broadest sense, including the scisms). If is became a national security issue to deal with polygamists, one would have to do so in a Mormon context. You will also note that most of the time we are in the news, it isn't the mainstream church. In short, only the worst face is shown to the rest of the world. Now, I would be willing to say that terrorism is a great deal more important a policy issue than polygamy, and I know for a fact that there are a great deal more Muslims than Mormons, so I don't find it suprising that most mentions of Islam come with discussions of terrorism. Judging by Card's column linked right now, I don't think he blames Islam for modern terrorism any more than he blamed Eastern Europeans for anarchist terrorism.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Amira. I knew of the other interpretation. Unfortunately, it is not the one we hear about the most often. Leto was right about it being a buzz word, and I used it in that context.
For what it is worth, Brian Mitchell and the Lafferties identify themselves as Mormons. In a lot of ways, they are very much justified in calling themselves that because they believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. It is painful to see books with the angle that the same beliefs we share are responsible for their evil nature. Other Mormons in the past have committed great evil. I will point out Mountain Meadows. It was a very complicated issue, born of the fear and anger towards people who had persecuted them previously, but what they did was horrible and they did it acting as Mormons, not just folks from Utah. I will not condone what they did, either.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The South African model is a good one to follow, but I personally always think in terms of the civil rights movement here in the states. As far as the legal and governmental maneuverings, it is far different, but in terms of what happened and must happen in people's hearts, it is the same.
1) The civil rights movement was largely successful. Not that racism doesn't still exist and isn't a problem, but the difference from my childhood to now is as night and day. I can't emphasize enough how much things have changed for the better. There was a systematic, legalized, pervasive oppression before. That is largely gone. I don't want to claim there's not a lot of work left to be done, or that any level of racism is acceptable, yet what has been accomplished is enormous, and simply far beyond anyone's wildest imaginings at the time.
2) The loss of life was minimal. Many martyrs there were to the cause, yet the number of dead in Northern Ireland, or in Palestine, dwarfs the numbers killed here. In addition, the constant backdrop of lynchings and beatings which went on before the civil rights movement has been brought largely to a halt. What was once acceptable to society and winked at by police is now treated as criminal and prosecuted.
3) There was no perpetual aftermath of death and armed insurgency, as in Palestine or Northern Ireland. Decades later, we here have peace.
Make no mistake, this could have been a war just like any other civil war anywhere in the world. My home could very well have been today like Northern Ireland or Palestine. But things worked out differently here. I think that model can be taken by struggles for justice and against oppression everywhere.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's safe to say that everyone has a cultural history with dark episodes in it. People looking on from the outside can always say they are just like that. People like that are just that way. See? You can see by this and this and this.
What's equally clear to me is that the way forward toward the light is by refusing to think of the problem that way. The father of one of the four little girls killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing (Ginny McNair) is in local politics here now. He said, "White people didn't kill my child; some crazy men killed my child." I think you have to reject the sort of thinking that goes "white people killed my child", or "Islam causes terrorism", or "Mormons are just like that", or whatever it may be. If there is a way through it involves thinking of all of us as one family.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there has been, recently, sympthy among mormons for polygamists. At least among those who call into AM talk shows. Like they see them as folks just trying to do their thing being harassed by big brother. The citizens of DC who reelected Marion Barry had a similar sympathy for something they maybe don't officially endorse. I think this is the kind of attitude OSC was frustrated with (in the PARTIALLY QUOTED material). Heck, why am I about to bump this thing again. Anyway, your defensiveness (of everyone who is defensive) suggests that you are more worried about the image of Islam as a whole than purifying the community of the offenders. It's okay. Mormons did the same thing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We saw it as an internal affair, and anyone who didn't think so was a hateful bigot.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I feel as if you are generalizing me, because I happen to live in an era where a culture is experiencing a dark period and I am disagreeing with their actions.
Is there any way I can make it more clear? I do not disagree with their actions because they are Muslim, even though I recognize how the roots of their actions have evolved from that religion. I disagree with their actions because the actions themselves are evil.
There are people in this world who will commit evil no matter how nice you are to them. There are people who will take advantage of your kindness and use it to commit more evil. Forgiving them doesn't mean you hug them and say, Its okay, I understand, go on now and be the good person I know you can be. They'll never improve that way. They need to face real consequences of their action, or they'll continue in their evil patterns.
Heck, of this particular evil I'm barely touched. What of the women who live under some of the extremist rule, who were not allowed to even teach their daughters to read? What of the mothers who struggle to feed their children in war torn countries where even the Red Cross is bombed by extremists?
A person who does horrible things will not stop doing horrible things until they are taught and actually absorb the information a) that the thing is bad and b) how to overcome the pattern they've set for themself. And that is not always a pleasant lesson to learn.
Yes, it is all we. There is no them, only us. We are all sentient beings. And we are all naturally evil.
posted
I think it is important to know what Jihad means. I also found this information in a few other places but I will quote from the Encyclopedia of the Orient under the definition of Jihad with emphasis provided by me:
quote: Muslim law has divided the world into two entities, dāru l-'islām, the adobe of Islam , and dāru l-harb, the adobe of war . Battling against the Abode of war was a duty for a Muslim, as this is the only way for the peace of Islam to take the place of the warlike conditions of the infidels' society. Jihad can be both defence, as well as attacking an enemy.
The enemies of Islam are divided into two groups, the Peoples of the book, āhlu l-kitāb and the pagans, the kāfirūn. The first group, defined as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Mandeans need only to submit to an Islamic ruler, and live in peace with other Muslims to end the situation where jihad is imperative .
So, you either submit to Islam or you are at war with Islam?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to accept that as a given. In fact, I believe we are all naturally GOOD, and must be taught evil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't had children yet, Tom. From early on they are biting and hitting their siblings to get what they want. About four or five is the time they realize that they can lie about things. Luckily, they are very poor liars that early on. Parents catch them and then teach them. If they aren't taught, they'll continue to lie. And sometimes if they are taught.
Innocent yes, but only because it is clear they do not understand that what they are doing hurts other people. If during this time they are not taught, they continue in that behavior and get more clever at it.
I will agree that compassion can be natural. But even that depends on early infant bonding with a caring individual.
I don't believe in original sin. Every child born is as pure as the driven snow. But I do believe in a natural tendancy to act selfishly.
That you think everyone is born good speaks well of how you were raised when you were very young, even if your parents made a botch of it while you were a teenager. You don't remember a time when you didn't have compassion of some type.
But note that, for loving parents, as I assume is the norm for Muslim parents as it is for everyone, to output such youth as will willingly bomb innocents, those children must be taught that evil. But it is not really difficult. All they really need to learn is that these are not really people, but enemies and compassion doesn't apply to them. Or that it is compassionate to kill them. There is some evil for you.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka's right, Tom. It's not that children are EVIL...but they don't recognize for a while that there's anyone else in the world. They are alone, and other people are objects that respond to their will--so naturally they act for themselves. It takes a while to get the idea that someone else can exist.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you that individuals who do evil things must be opposed. I'm not for pretending evil doesn't exist. What I dislike in this thread is the idea that Islam fosters terrorism. The thought of defining the problem as being with Islam. If this is true then it's also true that Christianity fosters terrorism. And that white people are naturally brutal and demonic, as Malcolm X once believed.
My objection is not to fighting evil, but to claiming that the evil arises from a particular religion, instead of being something that's endemic in all of us because we are human.
When you do that, you see, you declare war on a huge number of people who would otherwise be your natural allies. Good people who are against the evil actions. That path leads to perpetual war and genocide. The only path that leads to peaceful resolution involves seeing people as individuals.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, people are not isolated individuals. They live in communities and act on behalf of those communities, percieving that whatever is good for the community is good for them. If the idea comes up that it is good for the community to foster those who openly kill innocents of another community, then that individual will most likely take up support of that action.
The solution is not to destroy the community, but to remove those influences that actively endorse such activity and replace them with more compassionate solutions, that are better in the end because a community that acts with violence WILL eventually be put down by the others around it that see it as a threat. The action of replacing poor ideals that lead to violence with positive ones may itself require stiff action. This is exactly what is happening now in the middle east.
We can wish all we want, but our world is still divided into nation states, and will remain so until communication is universally global with the majority of individuals. We have not reached that critical mass, yet. IF we gave the internet to every family on this planet, it would still take about three generations for global thinking to occur. As it is, such saturation will take either decades or hundreds of years, with the acceptance of global thought occuring some decades after that.
We can only act in the world that exists, not the one we hope will exist.
posted
Islamic Fundmentalists are not really muslims. They are people who follow a total polluion of Islam.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
