Islam v. Islamists [Archive]

Elind

21st October 2007, 05:58 PM

You're assessment is full of crap. Muslims believe it is related in the same way Christians believe that radical Christian terrorism is related to Christianity: that it's a twisting of the faith and not condoned by the religious tenets.

I can't even say "nice try," though. That's such a tired and weak way to demonize something that you have no desire to understand, that it simply has become the path for the intellectually lazy.

Now, if you would step back a bit and take note of how you pretend to conduct a debate, while throwing accusations that others don't, you might be surprised at what you see.

There are no radical Christian terrorist threats at this time that have any comparable scale to the Islamic one. You don't appear to be very well informed about any of this. Had you watched the program in the OP you would have learned something. Had you read the news worldwide and compared the statistics with radical Christian atrocities you would have learned something. Had you read any of the Arab news commentaries, or watched any Memri clips from Hamas, or any of the videos of Muslim Imams calling for Jihad in countless mosques in the West you would have learned something.

Had you ever tried to read the Koran you would have learned that perhaps half of it is concerned with condemnation, death, destruction and more of the infidels (that's any non Muslim), but with specific relish on how to deal with the Jews. These are the parts that are never quoted in English by Muslims.

Had you ever bothered to learn that the Koran is the LITERAL word of Allah you would understand that there is a significant difference in how most Christians and Muslims read their holy books.

Had you bothered to read all the multitude of surveys conducted all over the world on the attitude of Muslims towards what we call terrorism you would have been dismayed at the percentages who tacitly or outright support it (always with justification however).

You are not a Muslim are you? If so, sorry to offend, but them's the facts.

Elind

21st October 2007, 06:17 PM

Islamic terrorists are related to Islam.

OK

Christian terrorists are linked to Christianity.

Certainly would be if they acted the same way today, and the abortion bombers or the McVeighs certainly fit the bill, but I fail to see the comparison in terms of threat posed in any realistic sense.

and so on, and so on, and so on.

Not very informative. You mean all religious nuts have the potential to be terrorists? I agree, but none pose the same threat nor conduct the same scale of random killing today.

The important point (well, other than exterminating all terrorists - which is very high on my personal agenda) is that most people: no matter what religion, race, political affiliation, etc. just want to live peacefully and have a nice, calm, reasonably happy life.

True too, except that usually also means that they prefer to not get involved, except perhaps to make a little donation to their brave bretheren now and then, and look the other way when they perhaps would rather not know.

Now that is a human condition too, applicable to all in a general sense, but particularly relevant when the core issue revolves around a faith that calls for the destruction or assimilation in one way or another of all those who don't belong. Surely you can see that different groups will act differently based on certain core beliefs, even though they all go the same grocery store?

If it were not for the remainder ( the True Believers and the non-TBs that use them - think religious right and G. Bush the lesser as example - though I half-way suspect that GBl is a TB also being used), they would.

You say "use them" as if you are sympathetic to the poor people being used. Do you really think Islamic terrorism is just a fringe supported by a few unscrupulous governments? I don't mean to insult, but I have to call that incredibly naive and uninformed.

Elind

21st October 2007, 06:20 PM

I'll go a step further, ALL Islamic Terrorists are human. Therefore the OP should be a suspect as well.

Did you think that one up all by yourself?:covereyes

gumboot

21st October 2007, 07:56 PM

Provide some Statistics ... your point is true for
nutty Christians and their bloody history as well.
And I fully agree with you, Jesus, Muhammad and
all the other A-Holes should be wiped off the face
of time.

I've heard a number of experts on Radical Islam offer that about 10% - 15% of all Muslims support some form of Radical Islam, although they stress this is only an estimate. That would be 120 - 180 million people.

Even trying to estimate the number of people who are then Islamic Terrorists is difficult. What constitutes an "Islamic Terrorist"? Is it only those who have personally carried out actual attacks? Does it include anyone who has ever funded a terrorist group, or those that are "members" but have no done anything? Is it those that have been through training camps? Is it those that have expressed support for other terrorists? Is it those that would be willing to carry out a terrorist attack?

Determining the number of radical Muslims in the world is little better than an educated stab in the dark. Determining the number of Radical Islamic Terrorists (who would be but a fraction of all radical Muslims) is pretty much impossible. What, I think, is more important is that a large percentage of Radical Muslims support Islamic Terrorism in some way. And even more important is that only a small percentage of non-radical Muslims actively combat Radical Islam. That's the problem.

-Gumboot

Elind

21st October 2007, 08:33 PM

Clearly how a question is phrased has a major effect on the answers, particularly on topics like this.

I would suggest asking surveyed Muslims not how they feel about some act of violence or if the perpetrators were true Muslims or whatever, but simply whether or not they believe certain dictates in the Koran are the true wish of Allah, or whether they would accept repudiating and removing such commands from the Koran. (Play with the question wording if desired, but the principle remains).

Pick any dozen or so at random from this reference

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Of course I suggest a bodyguard while posing the questions.

Many posts here seem to blithely think that Muslims can have a "New Testament" equivalent of the bible if they wish to do so personally, but they can't because unlike the New Testament these phrases are actual words from Allah, not verses to be interpreted (some can perhaps be interpreted more than one way, most can't). Also in Islam there is NO separation of church and state when you get down to the reality. A secular state may be a temporary condition to put up with, but the religion makes no allowances for that as the norm.

Read Allah's commands above, and see how easy it is for a Muslim angry at something, anything, to find a way to express it honorably, according to his or her beliefs.

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 04:21 AM

Any rational and well-read Muslim can tell you in a very detailed sense how Islam is a secular faith, not a political one.

Interesting how this one is always quoted, 'Slay them wherever ye find them ' but they miss out the next part, 'But do not do this by attacking them first, for Allah loves not the transgressors'. Agenda much?

You must understand how one of the Islamists main enemies is Muslims. They make very sure to call their way Islamism, not Islam, with the mantra 'No East No West, Islamism, Islamism'.

Alareth

22nd October 2007, 10:15 AM

Did you think that one up all by yourself?:covereyes

Sometimes absurdism is the best way to get a point across.

Lurker

22nd October 2007, 10:30 AM

Elind

22nd October 2007, 12:38 PM

Sometimes absurdism is the best way to get a point across.

You mean trivialism don't you? :cool:

Elind

22nd October 2007, 12:42 PM

Any rational and well-read Muslim can tell you in a very detailed sense how Islam is a secular faith, not a political one.

Could have fooled me all the years I lived in Saudi.

Interesting how this one is always quoted, 'Slay them wherever ye find them ' but they miss out the next part, 'But do not do this by attacking them first, for Allah loves not the transgressors'. Agenda much?

Keep going. Why stop at one; and do remember the rule that the later ones trump any conflicting priors.

You must understand how one of the Islamists main enemies is Muslims. They make very sure to call their way Islamism, not Islam, with the mantra 'No East No West, Islamism, Islamism'.

And I wonder just how many go to the trouble of such fine points. I'll give more weight to one harmed by the whole thing, like Hirshi or Rushdie, than armchair analysts like us, me included.

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 01:13 PM

Could have fooled me all the years I lived in Saudi.

So because a country is governed by Wahhabism, the state religion, an offshot that goes around destroying sacred Muslim shrines (Including the tomb of Imam Ali's son), that means you have, because the country comprises more Muslims than in Britain, a better knowledge of a 1300 year old ideology?

Keep going. Why stop at one; and do remember the rule that the later ones trump any conflicting priors.

Yes, the rest is very harsh and hateful. Some of it is truly fightening. But what is interesting is how a know an Islamist who goes to great lengths to rebel against his brothers who wish to inflict harm in order to bring change. Could that be because... gasp.. he is a relatively good guy who doesn't use (Like his brothers) the words of a book as a facade for internal hatred?

And I wonder just how many go to the trouble of such fine points. I'll give more weight to one harmed by the whole thing, like Hirshi or Rushdie, than armchair analysts like us, me included.

Ah, Rushdie. When Naguib Mahfouz, a far more talanted writer, a nobel prize winner, was stabbed in the neck by an Islamist, he still condemned Rushdie for The Satanic Verses. That attack paralyzed his writing hand. He stayed in Egypt until he died and didn't move to Britain. Who has a more hands-on evidence eh?

"I consider Khomeini's position dangerous. He does not have the right to pass judgment-that is not the Islamic way."

Would you be that sympathetic if you had a blade put in your neck?

Darat

22nd October 2007, 01:38 PM

Could have fooled me all the years I lived in Saudi.

...snip...

But Saudi is a country that is ruled by a system that the world's most infamous Muslim terrorist is set on destroying i.e. the monarchy.

GreNME

22nd October 2007, 01:46 PM

Could have fooled me all the years I lived in Saudi.

I love it when people pull this crap. SA is about the bottom of the barrel if you're choosing nations that are representative of contemporary Islam. Try the UAE as a better example.

pipelineaudio

22nd October 2007, 02:30 PM

pipelineaudio

22nd October 2007, 02:31 PM

I love it when people pull this crap. SA is about the bottom of the barrel if you're choosing nations that are representative of contemporary Islam. Try the UAE as a better example.

moving the goalposts much?

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 03:40 PM

There is no twisting of the faith necessary for the terorists, their actions are spelled out and not in anyway prevented by their scripture

What absolute nonesense.

I suggest you start you studies, on the raging debate within the Muslim world on what khalifah means when it is mentioned in the Koran, and why it is mostly mentioned in the plural and only given in a singular sense when atributed to Adam.

I wish to not defend Islam so much, as it can give more eloquent and convincing theological sanction to terrorist acts than the Christians, but you really need to swot up on your statements, because at the moment you act like a uninformed absolutist nonce.

pipelineaudio

22nd October 2007, 03:49 PM

What absolute nonesense.

I suggest you start you studies in the raging debate on what khalifah means when it is mentioned in the Koran, and why it is mostly mentioned in the plural and only given in a singular sense when atributed to Adam.

I wish to not defend Islam so much, as it can give more eloquent and convincing theological sanction to terrorist acts than the Christians, but you really need to swot up on your statements, because at the moment you act like a uninformed absolutist nonce.

Show me any verse in the Koran, which was not later abrogated away which condems the actions of terrorism for islams sake

no need to attack the messenger

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 04:21 PM

Show me any verse in the Koran, which was not later abrogated away which condems the actions of terrorism for islams sake

no need to attack the messenger

The problem you have here is that you fail to see that a large debate within Muslims is the Islamists insistence on regarding the Hadith in the same league as the Koran. This is debated for the main reason that the Hadith is a collection of stories and third, second-hand evidence of the way Mohammed lived his life, and not the 'words' of God. Some of it directly contradicts what is layed down in the Koran, and this is where the Islamists seperate themselves from the Muslims, as the latter rejects the Hadith, the 'traditions' on what the sharia is to be formed around.

What you need to do is not look for where the Koran advocates violence, but for where it advocates the creation of the khalifah, which is the, unless you missed this, the ultimate justification for Islamic terror. I hate to take a verse, as on an internet forum it is a lazy and incomplete way to look at a faith, but take this verse for example

'Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause.'

Now, you have to ask therefore, does the Koran advocate the creation of the Khalifah, the just cause? Yes say some, no say others. As I mentioned, Khalifah is mentioned in the plural sense within the Koran, but only in the singular when in regards to Adam.

Abu Bakr was the first caliph. But this was not set into motion whilst Mohammed was alive, and there were no plans for what came after Mohammed, none made by the man himself. So, this is where this thing called debate comes in. A debate I feel, in my view may come down on the side of the justification of violence in the name of Allah, and for good reason. But that is not the way I wish to view the world, nor is it the way I wish to see every Muslim. Nor do I wish to be without an ounce of study to back this view up, but mearly a handful of horrific quotes.

But take this thought from Syed Qutb (The godfather of all Islamism) had to say (I'm paraphrasing, I cant remember)

'It is not to be Muslim to grumble prayers, to shake the beads of rosary, to trust in those words 'Allah, you protect us,' and to believe in that salvation will rain from the sky.'

This guy is their hero and main 'scholar'. Everything he says above is completly un-Islamic.

Go figure.

Elind

22nd October 2007, 04:29 PM

But Saudi is a country that is ruled by a system that the world's most infamous Muslim terrorist is set on destroying i.e. the monarchy.

There are Jews who would destroy Zionism, there are Christians who would rule by the old testament there are sects within Islam and so on ad nauseam.

We all know this. Doesn't change the fact that there is an underlying commonality, and that is THE LITERAL word of Allah in the Koran. No moderate can oppose that because no moderate will kill for their beliefs (or lack of), whereas there are millions of others who will, given a few sermons with suitable justifications and quotations.

Elind

22nd October 2007, 04:46 PM

So because a country is governed by Wahhabism, the state religion, an offshot that goes around destroying sacred Muslim shrines (Including the tomb of Imam Ali's son), that means you have, because the country comprises more Muslims than in Britain, a better knowledge of a 1300 year old ideology?

You can call it an offshoot if it pleases you, but an offshoot of what? Which of the "mainline" versions are you referring to? Saudi happens to be the center of Islam and the richest and the most free with money to spread wahabism wherever people are dumb enough to allow it, which is everywhere. Look and you'll find Saudi Whabism behind virtually every major new Islamic project anywhere. They don't intend to remain an offshoot, if they ever have been in recent past.

Yes, the rest is very harsh and hateful. Some of it is truly fightening. But what is interesting is how a know an Islamist who goes to great lengths to rebel against his brothers who wish to inflict harm in order to bring change. Could that be because... gasp.. he is a relatively good guy who doesn't use (Like his brothers) the words of a book as a facade for internal hatred?

I've known good, kind and generous people of that faith, and called a few friend. There are even a few Christians who know I'm an Atheist and call me a friend, or vice versa. That argument by exception proves nothing.

Ah, Rushdie. When Naguib Mahfouz, a far more talanted writer, a nobel prize winner, was stabbed in the neck by an Islamist, he still condemned Rushdie for The Satanic Verses. That attack paralyzed his writing hand. He stayed in Egypt until he died and didn't move to Britain. Who has a more hands-on evidence eh?

Another argument by exception. All you are telling me is that there are talented Muslims who will not tolerate criticism of Islam. If he had been stabbed for defending Rushdie the argument might have a little weight, but still be an exception.

"I consider Khomeini's position dangerous. He does not have the right to pass judgment-that is not the Islamic way."

Would you be that sympathetic if you had a blade put in your neck?

Khomeini was a Persian he an Arab. No love lost there, but it is instructive that he still considers them both equally of Islam. However I perhaps am missing something in the quote, because of course it is Islamic to pass judgment. If not by them, then by who? Judgments are passed all the time on everything, and need to be. Did he mean as far as judging that the penalty was death?

Elind

22nd October 2007, 04:57 PM

I love it when people pull this crap. SA is about the bottom of the barrel if you're choosing nations that are representative of contemporary Islam. Try the UAE as a better example.

I'm so happy to please. That's my mission since I left Jesus behind.:rolleyes:

I already answered about Saudi to a more intelligent post.

You are right about the UAE being a more palatable example of an Islamic Kingdom, if you like Kingdoms. Long ago they were traders by sea and learned to work with others, particularly Indians and they allowed citizenship by such foreigners to the point where over half the population is foreign citizen, but (BUT) not able to vote like the Arab natives (to the extent that they have any vote) the last time I looked.

They have money and are spending it on some smart business and to draw in all the Saudis with too much money and no booze and no women to look at on the beaches back home (and tax dodging Europeans). Smart, but not my example of an ideal political structure, and wait see when the oil starts to dry up.

Elind

22nd October 2007, 05:11 PM

What you need to do is not look for where the Koran advocates violence, but for where it advocates the creation of the khalifah, which is the, unless you missed this, the ultimate justification for Islamic terror. I hate to take a verse, as on an internet forum it is a lazy and incomplete way to look at a faith, but take this verse for example

'Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause.'

Now, you have to ask therefore, does the Koran advocate the creation of the Khalifah, the just cause? Yes say some, no say others. As I mentioned, Khalifah is mentioned in the plural sense within the Koran, but only in the singular when in regards to Adam.

All of this would be interesting intellectually, IF we did not see what we are seeing today. Instead it is more interesting practically, inasmuch as the saying quoted are so easy to take the way one wants; just like the one above, "for just cause". Are you the authority telling all Imams who hate infidels that they may only consider this (the Khalifah) a "just cause", and then only if all Muslims vote on it? (I'm being facetious)

We should also point out that Allah does not appear to consider infidels, and Jews in particular, to be sacred life nor is that what is taught in Palestinian schools or for that matter any Islamic school. I saw some of that material years ago. I've seen it on Memri, and I've heard Hirshi speak of it, to name a few sources.

That is religion driving politics and terrorism.

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 05:29 PM

That is religion driving politics and terrorism.

I agree.

The problem is, you use Rushdie, I use Naguib Mahfouz. Both can be argued to be their own argument by exception.

Islam is a huge river. I think it is important to wade through it all, deep and shallow, instead of standing by the banks.

GreNME

22nd October 2007, 05:41 PM

You are right about the UAE being a more palatable example of an Islamic Kingdom, if you like Kingdoms. Long ago they were traders by sea and learned to work with others, particularly Indians and they allowed citizenship by such foreigners to the point where over half the population is foreign citizen, but (BUT) not able to vote like the Arab natives (to the extent that they have any vote) the last time I looked.

They have money and are spending it on some smart business and to draw in all the Saudis with too much money and no booze and no women to look at on the beaches back home (and tax dodging Europeans). Smart, but not my example of an ideal political structure, and wait see when the oil starts to dry up.

Tsk, tsk. More than tax-dodging Euros. Plenty of good-ole `Merican wealth heads over there when the gettin' is good, and you know this full well. The UAE is the 'Texas' of the global economy in terms of corporate-HQ-friendliness. As for their being a kingdom-- so what? The Saudis are a kingdom with a dictator family crushing the population. At least women get into positions of power there. Some even claim that they're ahead of America with regard to female representation in relation to positions of power in government.

The point is that they are a group of Islamic Emirates who are probably the best example of what the rest of the Mid-East could be if the main consumers of Mid-Eastern oil happenned to... oh, I dunno... no longer need their oil any more or something. I don't recall the title of the book off-hand, but the author of the book made a fairly strong case that the worst thing to happen to the Mid-East in its history was the discovery of oil there. Comparing the states over there whose economy relies almost solely on oil (like the Saudis) to the ones who have diversified (like the UAE) are a perfect example of the mechanisms in the region that contribute to it being the Jersey Shore of pretty much the whole West and Asia. To use a phrase I read once in fiction (which I am normally loathe to use), another term that could be applied is "hydraulic despotism."

Elind

22nd October 2007, 05:51 PM

I agree.

The problem is, you use Rushdie, I use Naguib Mahfouz. Both can be argued to be their own argument by exception.

I used Rushdie not as an example of a dissident, but as source of perspectives and an example of what dissent means to Islam. Your example was that of a man who opposed dissent, but I take your point to be careful.

Islam is a huge river. I think it is important to wade through it all, deep and shallow, instead of standing by the banks.

Soothing words, but one can't do that when concerned of it breaching the banks, and I have no desire to swim in it any more than any other superstition.;)

Elind

22nd October 2007, 06:02 PM

Tsk, tsk. More than tax-dodging Euros. Plenty of good-ole `Merican wealth heads over there when the gettin' is good, and you know this full well. The UAE is the 'Texas' of the global economy in terms of corporate-HQ-friendliness. As for their being a kingdom-- so what? snip

OK, also tax dodging Americans, Russians and so on, and all taking good money away from the poor Bahamians. However what I have read of it lately, and having some experience with speculative property booms in Florida, I would have to not give a damn about money before buying a home there now.

As for the Kingdom, I think that system of government is unstable long term, being exceptionally dependent on one or a few "rulers". Nevertheless The UAE is a present exception to the rule, but (big BUT) they don't represent the Islamic world and never will and the rest mostly has no possibility of emulating them for many reasons.

I would be very worried about airplanes and the world's tallest building in Dubai when it becomes clear to the rest of Islam just how many bitty bikinis are floating around their beaches corrupting all good Muslims. I would also be worried just how far they might look the other way to buy off their versions of OBL, just as the Saudis have done for years.

Undesired Walrus

22nd October 2007, 06:03 PM

Soothing words, but one can't do that when concerned of it breaching the banks, and I have no desire to swim in it any more than any other superstition.;)

But when it becomes deep, and you are gasping for air, you will learn to swim, and every stroke will get easier. Those who drown will look at you for inspiration.

Elind

22nd October 2007, 06:07 PM

What are you, a Buddhist now?

GreNME

22nd October 2007, 07:13 PM

OK, also tax dodging Americans, Russians and so on, and all taking good money away from the poor Bahamians. However what I have read of it lately, and having some experience with speculative property booms in Florida, I would have to not give a damn about money before buying a home there now.

Qatar and Bahrain are no Florida, though. Business speculation aside, though, their engineering practices are probably the most applicaple interests to me.

As for the Kingdom, I think that system of government is unstable long term, being exceptionally dependent on one or a few "rulers". Nevertheless The UAE is a present exception to the rule, but (big BUT) they don't represent the Islamic world and never will and the rest mostly has no possibility of emulating them for many reasons.

I think they represent it at least as much as Saudi Arabia, if not more. The difference between the Emirates and the Sauds is that one was forced to use foresight to diversify, while the other one is only going to last as long as there's oil.

I would be very worried about airplanes and the world's tallest building in Dubai when it becomes clear to the rest of Islam just how many bitty bikinis are floating around their beaches corrupting all good Muslims. I would also be worried just how far they might look the other way to buy off their versions of OBL, just as the Saudis have done for years.

I don't fool myself into thinking there aren't people there taking advantage of a huge cash economy in their vicinity. However, if you really did spend years in SA, then you know better than to assume that the men over there don't like pretty ladies just as much as anywhere else-- it won't be the bikinis that raise the ire of their neighbors. It'll be the money.

pipelineaudio

22nd October 2007, 11:04 PM

The problem you have here is that you fail to see that a large debate within Muslims is the Islamists insistence on regarding the Hadith in the same league as the Koran. This is debated for the main reason that the Hadith is a collection of stories and third, second-hand evidence of the way Mohammed lived his life, and not the 'words' of God. Some of it directly contradicts what is layed down in the Koran, and this is where the Islamists seperate themselves from the Muslims, as the latter rejects the Hadith, the 'traditions' on what the sharia is to be formed around.

What you need to do is not look for where the Koran advocates violence, but for where it advocates the creation of the khalifah, which is the, unless you missed this, the ultimate justification for Islamic terror. I hate to take a verse, as on an internet forum it is a lazy and incomplete way to look at a faith, but take this verse for example

'Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause.'

Now, you have to ask therefore, does the Koran advocate the creation of the Khalifah, the just cause? Yes say some, no say others. As I mentioned, Khalifah is mentioned in the plural sense within the Koran, but only in the singular when in regards to Adam.

Abu Bakr was the first caliph. But this was not set into motion whilst Mohammed was alive, and there were no plans for what came after Mohammed, none made by the man himself. So, this is where this thing called debate comes in. A debate I feel, in my view may come down on the side of the justification of violence in the name of Allah, and for good reason. But that is not the way I wish to view the world, nor is it the way I wish to see every Muslim. Nor do I wish to be without an ounce of study to back this view up, but mearly a handful of horrific quotes.

But take this thought from Syed Qutb (The godfather of all Islamism) had to say (I'm paraphrasing, I cant remember)

'It is not to be Muslim to grumble prayers, to shake the beads of rosary, to trust in those words 'Allah, you protect us,' and to believe in that salvation will rain from the sky.'

This guy is their hero and main 'scholar'. Everything he says above is completly un-Islamic.

Go figure.

So that would be a : no, nothing in the Koran that is not later abrogated in the koran ( I will spot you tossing the Hadiths for the sake of this argument) is against the terrorists or their tactics?

gumboot

22nd October 2007, 11:17 PM

But when it becomes deep, and you are gasping for air, you will learn to swim, and every stroke will get easier. Those who drown will look at you for inspiration.

I know you probably didn't mean it to sound this way, but the above sounds like you're saying he'll convert to Islam...

-Gumboot

Undesired Walrus

23rd October 2007, 01:04 AM

So that would be a : no, nothing in the Koran that is not later abrogated in the koran ( I will spot you tossing the Hadiths for the sake of this argument) is against the terrorists or their tactics?

Way to completly miss my point and all I took the bother to type out and discuss.

Want some eye balm for those glazed over pupils?

pipelineaudio

23rd October 2007, 09:54 AM

Way to completly miss my point and all I took the bother to type out and discuss.

Want some eye balm for those glazed over pupils?

Lets go back to my first post then, when you called this absolute nonsense. I still see no evidence of it being absolute nonsense. I am no dummy when it comes to islam, but I perfer to keep things simple when they can be.

There was no need to spew a half page essay to defend my original post.

Just because there was one attacking it makes it no less accurate.

Undesired Walrus

23rd October 2007, 11:47 AM

I am no dummy when it comes to islam, but I perfer to keep things simple

:covereyes

Elind

23rd October 2007, 12:39 PM

The problem you have here is that you fail to see that a large debate within Muslims is the Islamists insistence on regarding the Hadith in the same league as the Koran.

To return to this post, which is no doubt correct in essence; but is it correct in any practical sense that affects how we view and feel Islamic driven terrorism?

It really doesn't matter if a majority or large minority takes one view or the other, they clearly are not in a position to either want to or able to "excommunicate" each other. Each side will still argue that the other is still part of the family, just misinformed.

Means nothing to their victims.

Undesired Walrus

23rd October 2007, 12:46 PM

To return to this post, which is no doubt correct in essence; but is it correct in any practical sense that affects how we view and feel Islamic driven terrorism?

It really doesn't matter if a majority or large minority takes one view or the other, they clearly are not in a position to either want to or able to "excommunicate" each other. Each side will still argue that the other is still part of the family, just misinformed.

Means nothing to their victims.

Indeed.

I simply think it is lucky the hadith, which sets out the framework for the sharia, is rejected by many if not most Muslims (As it is not the words of God, wheras the Koran 'is').

But yes, from your last sentance, I fear you are correct. I remember an Islamist in Hyde Park a few months back, who had a blistering row with an old Muslim who rejected his view. As the Islamist went to leave, the older Muslim shook his hand and said 'I disagree with you, but you are still my brother'.

From my experience, I fear you are right.

pipelineaudio

23rd October 2007, 01:05 PM

:covereyes

so, thats a "no, there is no evidence to support your claim that my post was absolute nonsense, but rather adhom"?

ok

Elind

23rd October 2007, 01:12 PM

Indeed.

I simply think it is lucky the hadith, which sets out the framework for the sharia, is rejected by many if not most Muslims (As it is not the words of God, wheras the Koran 'is').

So we should be thankful that things could be worse?:boxedin:

Undesired Walrus

23rd October 2007, 01:38 PM

so, thats a "no, there is no evidence to support your claim that my post was absolute nonsense, but rather adhom"?

ok

no.

Elind

23rd October 2007, 08:49 PM

The point is that they are a group of Islamic Emirates who are probably the best example of what the rest of the Mid-East could be if the main consumers of Mid-Eastern oil happenned to... oh, I dunno... no longer need their oil any more or something.

While I don't retract anything I said earlier, this is a good example of what lies behind the surface of the capitalist, Muslim, miracle in the UAE that you propose as the best example of same.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2007/10/hey-at-least-shes-got-pink-ribbon-on.html

http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/storage/3XPPCAI1JRE2CAHYKCYYCAY96VW8CAJZI0GTCAHL044LCA4PUT 96CALUOVWMCA66PO0ICA3JZAQTCAFQ7VOVCA49KXH3CAZ09E84 CAD8YT80CAMGEO2DCAH5BAP3CA8JU6AWCAMDQM7YCATP0TRHCA 6K4F5O.jpg

GreNME

24th October 2007, 06:48 AM

While I don't retract anything I said earlier, this is a good example of what lies behind the surface of the capitalist, Muslim, miracle in the UAE that you propose as the best example of same.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2007/10/hey-at-least-shes-got-pink-ribbon-on.html

http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/storage/3XPPCAI1JRE2CAHYKCYYCAY96VW8CAJZI0GTCAHL044LCA4PUT 96CALUOVWMCA66PO0ICA3JZAQTCAFQ7VOVCA49KXH3CAZ09E84 CAD8YT80CAMGEO2DCAH5BAP3CA8JU6AWCAMDQM7YCATP0TRHCA 6K4F5O.jpg

Are you referring to those two photos, which are even described as having been taken in Saudi Arabia?

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't consider the UAE a "miracle" or entirely "capitalist," I said it is the best example of where the nations over there could be if they weren't so busy scraping at the ground for oil as their source for wealth and relevance in the world.

Elind

24th October 2007, 07:16 AM

Are you referring to those two photos, which are even described as having been taken in Saudi Arabia?

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't consider the UAE a "miracle" or entirely "capitalist," I said it is the best example of where the nations over there could be if they weren't so busy scraping at the ground for oil as their source for wealth and relevance in the world.

Testy as always. :rolleyes:

Technically, the "TRUE" UAE stock come from this tradition and there are plenty of potato sacks walking around there; they have just decided for now that getting foreigners in to make money for them is worth putting up with corrupt ways for the time being.

As to the source of the photos; I saw a caption that said she was going to Saudi next. Feel free to correct if you know better.

GreNME

24th October 2007, 07:35 AM

Testy as always. :rolleyes:

Does that mean I can say stuff like "racist as always" about you and get away with it?

Technically, the "TRUE" UAE stock come from this tradition and there are plenty of potato sacks walking around there; they have just decided for now that getting foreigners in to make money for them is worth putting up with corrupt ways for the time being.

You're mistaking the regular practice of hijab-- which is common in the UAE and no different than the Orthodox Jewish headscarf-- for the more extreme version in practice of forcing women to wear abaya (the "potato sack" you mention) in nations like Saudi Arabia or the burqa in nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As to the source of the photos; I saw a caption that said she was going to Saudi next. Feel free to correct if you know better.

Maybe you should read more carefully or follow blog comments on other articles to their source articles: quoted (http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=795152&categoryId=103753) "Apparently she wore a trouser suit, as female dignitaries visiting Saudi Arabia are exempted from wearing the long black robe, known as abaya, which is a must for other women in the ultra-conservative kingdom."

You're the one who lived over there for years. I shouldn't have to correct you on this stuff if you're the expert on their culture you implied you are.

Elind

24th October 2007, 01:47 PM

Does that mean I can say stuff like "racist as always" about you and get away with it?

Pedantic as always:rolleyes:. I haven't seen anyone stopping you and I don't have time to waste reporting you for it.

You're mistaking the regular practice of hijab-- which is common in the UAE and no different than the Orthodox Jewish headscarf-- for the more extreme version in practice of forcing women to wear abaya (the "potato sack" you mention) in nations like Saudi Arabia or the burqa in nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan.The pictures were potato sack variety. Pelosi was the one in the scarf.

Maybe you should read more carefully or follow blog comments on other articles to their source articles: quoted (http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=795152&categoryId=103753) "Apparently she wore a trouser suit, as female dignitaries visiting Saudi Arabia are exempted from wearing the long black robe, known as abaya, which is a must for other women in the ultra-conservative kingdom."
As far as I understand the pictures were taken in the UAE. Female "dignitaries" in Saudi don't usually go shopping in the streets which is where that type of dress is recommended upon pain of whipping or arrest. What's your point?

You're the one who lived over there for years. I shouldn't have to correct you on this stuff if you're the expert on their culture you implied you are.I lived there, actually in several of those countries, for about 10 years. I don't claim that makes me an expert in anything except the perspective of a foreigner. I still don't know what point you are trying to make except practice being pedantic.:cool:

GreNME

24th October 2007, 02:39 PM

The pictures were potato sack variety. Pelosi was the one in the scarf.

As far as I understand the pictures were taken in the UAE. Female "dignitaries" in Saudi don't usually go shopping in the streets which is where that type of dress is recommended upon pain of whipping or arrest. What's your point?

You are mistaken. Those photos were taken in Saudi Arabia. I have no idea why you are mistaking this simply stated fact, except that it displays your own prejudices. The very first line in the original article is "Laura Bush in Saudi." How much more clear can it be for you? The fact that you call her "Pelosi" and not "Laura Bush" is showing how much you're not thinking your posts through.

I lived there, actually in several of those countries, for about 10 years. I don't claim that makes me an expert in anything except the perspective of a foreigner. I still don't know what point you are trying to make except practice being pedantic.:cool:

The point I'm trying to make is that you were the one who brought up living there when talk of "how things are" in the country. It wasn't something you mentioned casually, it was mentioned deliberately. If you think it doesn't mean anything that you mentioned it, then why bring it up to begin with?

Elind

24th October 2007, 05:20 PM

You are mistaken. Those photos were taken in Saudi Arabia. I have no idea why you are mistaking this simply stated fact, except that it displays your own prejudices. The very first line in the original article is "Laura Bush in Saudi." How much more clear can it be for you? The fact that you call her "Pelosi" and not "Laura Bush" is showing how much you're not thinking your posts through.

I earlier provided several quick links. I didn't do more than look at pictures. I did a new Google search and many come up. All say it was Monday and she was in Abu Dhabi. End of story, please.

Pelosi reference was a joke, because she looked like a joke when she, unlike L. Bush, put on a scarf when in Syria, alongside other scarfed, but not bagged, women. You mentioned scarfs, but all this is getting way to complicated to explain to you all the time.

The point I'm trying to make is that you were the one who brought up living there when talk of "how things are" in the country. It wasn't something you mentioned casually, it was mentioned deliberately. If you think it doesn't mean anything that you mentioned it, then why bring it up to begin with?

I don't know anymore what aspect of how things are you are talking about, or why.

GreNME

24th October 2007, 06:31 PM

I earlier provided several quick links. I didn't do more than look at pictures. I did a new Google search and many come up. All say it was Monday and she was in Abu Dhabi. End of story, please.

No, not end of story. You made up an accusation and you're refusing to admit you were wrong. Those pictures were taken in Saudi Arabia.

Examples of the common headgear worn in the UAE:
http://www.fcciuae.ae/bwc/images/news_pic10.jpg
http://www.fahad.com/pics/sheikha_lubna_fragrance.jpg
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/8/cms/images/stories/maryam_althani.jpg

Pelosi reference was a joke, because she looked like a joke when she, unlike L. Bush, put on a scarf when in Syria, alongside other scarfed, but not bagged, women. You mentioned scarfs, but all this is getting way to complicated to explain to you all the time.

What does the wind feel like when you're backpedaling so hard?

I don't know anymore what aspect of how things are you are talking about, or why.

It's really simple. You start a thread about Islam, and when someone disagrees with what you say you come back with a pithy "could have fooled me when I was living there" comment. And now, when you try to make an back-handed comment about the Islamic dress commonly worn in the UAE, you incorrectly linked to images from Saudi Arabia. Now you're refusing to admit your mistake and making it seem more and more like you were, indeed being fooled all those years you lived over there, just like you were being pithy about before.

Basically, if you're actually trying to come off as a blowhard, then you are succeeding. :)

pchams

24th October 2007, 07:49 PM

<snip>
Islam is a huge river. I think it is important to wade through it all, deep and shallow, instead of standing by the banks.

No. Islam is an imaginary river. Dream all you want, and then put as much stock in it as any dream. It has as much to do with reality as the 49 virgins
suicide bombers believe they will attain doing 'Allah's' will.

You wade through it. I had enough wading through sewers in real life, that I don't need to dive in to see that it is polluted. One can smell it.

Elind

24th October 2007, 07:49 PM

No, not end of story. You made up an accusation and you're refusing to admit you were wrong. Those pictures were taken in Saudi Arabia.

Examples of the common headgear worn in the UAE:
http://www.fcciuae.ae/bwc/images/news_pic10.jpg
http://www.fahad.com/pics/sheikha_lubna_fragrance.jpg
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/8/cms/images/stories/maryam_althani.jpg

I didn't "accuse" anything. I said the pictures were taken in the UAE because that is where she was on Monday and that's what the news reports say. What does showing a few "typical" examples prove? You missed out the "Lone Ranger" masks in your examples too. This is getting silly.

What does the wind feel like when you're backpedaling so hard?
:boggled: See above.

It's really simple. You start a thread about Islam, and when someone disagrees with what you say you come back with a pithy "could have fooled me when I was living there" comment.

That was in reference to a comment that religion was separate from secular government. Nothing whatsoever to do with this side jaunt on where Laura Bush's picture was taken. :confused:

And now, when you try to make an back-handed comment about the Islamic dress commonly worn in the UAE, you incorrectly linked to images from Saudi Arabia.I quote multiple news reports available to you too. One or more would appear to be incorrectly labelled. Not exactly an uncommon experience with journalism these days, but I invited you to do your own research and let me know if the UAE location was wrong. You have not done so and instead come up with a few fashion shots as if they have any relevance whatsoever. Ridiculous.

Now you're refusing to admit your mistake and making it seem more and more like you were, indeed being fooled all those years you lived over there, just like you were being pithy about before.Completely lost me there.

Basically, if you're actually trying to come off as a blowhard, then you are succeeding. :)Obviously to you I am. You must think we have much in common. As I said before; I'm here to please.

FireGarden

25th October 2007, 02:33 AM

So that would be a : no, nothing in the Koran that is not later abrogated in the koran ( I will spot you tossing the Hadiths for the sake of this argument) is against the terrorists or their tactics?

What in the Quran is for the terrorists and their tactics? And where is your evidence regarding which verses are abrogated by which?

FireGarden

25th October 2007, 02:41 AM

Pelosi reference was a joke, because she looked like a joke when she, unlike L. Bush, put on a scarf when in Syria, alongside other scarfed, but not bagged, women. You mentioned scarfs, but all this is getting way to complicated to explain to you all the time.

But Laura Bush did put on a scarf, when she visited the Vatican.
http://bestofbothworlds.blogspot.com/2007/06/american-woman-oppressed-by-religion.html

See! She too was oppressed by religion!
Except she wasn't. She was showing respect. And the only joke is people like Elind.

Elind

25th October 2007, 06:52 AM

What in the Quran is for the terrorists and their tactics? And where is your evidence regarding which verses are abrogated by which?

As was explained earlier, the later ones in the order written trump the earlier ones if there is a contradiction or conflict. What do you want, a complete post of the Koran for your "evidence"?

Elind

25th October 2007, 06:58 AM

But Laura Bush did put on a scarf, when she visited the Vatican.
http://bestofbothworlds.blogspot.com/2007/06/american-woman-oppressed-by-religion.html

See! She too was oppressed by religion!
Except she wasn't. She was showing respect. And the only joke is people like Elind.

So you respect the potato bags as simple fashion or religious observance do you?

As to scarves, I think it is a primitive convention with similar roots to the bags, but not in the same category as it is limited to churches. I didn't mention Laura Bush in the Vatican and wouldn't have bothered; I mentioned Pelosi in Syria where she goes as a key leader of the USA, against the policy of the current government, and ends up looking ridiculous and powerless (not to mention achieving exactly nothing politically) photographed with women who have to wear that label everywhere they go.

Seems you have a lot in common with some other logic wizards here.

FireGarden

25th October 2007, 07:09 AM

As was explained earlier, the later ones in the order written trump the earlier ones if there is a contradiction or conflict. What do you want, a complete post of the Koran for your "evidence"?

But the order of chapters in the Quran is today based mostly on length, rather than order written. And, even within a chapter, verses aren't necesarilly given in order of revelation.

The order in which the verses are supposed to have been revealed is not entirely agreed upon. Some of them make references to historical events, but most do not.

It's a complicated subject.
So it is very reasonable to ask how you, and Pipeline, know which verses are abrogated by others.

Elind

25th October 2007, 07:23 AM

So it is very reasonable to ask how you, and Pipeline, know which verses are abrogated by others.

Because, when in doubt the rule given is applied, whether your logic likes it or not.

FireGarden

25th October 2007, 08:02 AM

So you respect the potato bags as simple fashion or religious observance do you?

What's the difference?

As to scarves, I think it is a primitive convention with similar roots to the bags, but not in the same category as it is limited to churches. I didn't mention Laura Bush in the Vatican and wouldn't have bothered; I mentioned Pelosi in Syria where she goes as a key leader of the USA, against the policy of the current government, and ends up looking ridiculous and powerless (not to mention achieving exactly nothing politically) photographed with women who have to wear that label everywhere they go.

Except Pelosi was at the Ommayad Mosque, even according to LGF:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25004_Pelosi_in_a_Hijab&only

So was it wrong of Pelosi to wear a headscarf at a Mosque, but OK for Mrs Bush to wear a headscarf at the Vatican? Even LGF had to pretend that the main point of their article was that Pelosi was in Syria -- in spite of their title (inflicted upon them by... who knows) is simply "Pelosi in a Hijab". LGF = Losers!

Incidently, to compare like with like, here's Pelosi with what looks like the same headscarf, but she's not wearing it on her head. According to the caption she's in Saudi Arabia, though the story is about her visit to Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html

Seems you have a lot in common with some other logic wizards here.

Yes.
I base things on evidence rather than propaganda.

FireGarden

25th October 2007, 08:04 AM

Because, when in doubt the rule given is applied, whether your logic likes it or not.

So which Sura was revealed first and which last? How do you know which abrogates which if you do not know the order in which they were revealed?

Elind

25th October 2007, 09:17 AM

So which Sura was revealed first and which last? How do you know which abrogates which if you do not know the order in which they were revealed?

Actually, I think in that case it leaves only one obvious conclusion which seems to escape you; and I am not the one making up this rule.

Elind

25th October 2007, 09:29 AM

What's the difference?

So you respect the denigration of women it seems, whatever the excuse.

So was it wrong of Pelosi to wear a headscarf at a Mosque, but OK for Mrs Bush to wear a headscarf at the Vatican?

Don't you ever read anything someone says? Pelosi went as a representative of the United States, then presented herself as another second class citizen in a propaganda photo with other second class citizens. Had she gone as a private tourist and wanted to visit a mosque or church it would not be a commentable issue, but she did not do that.

Laura Bush went to the UAE promoting awareness of breast cancer, but not a peep about women being allowed to drive in some places nor about female mutilation not about potato bag fashions imposed by men, then she allows herself to have a ridiculous photo taken with unrecognizable sacks who could just as well have been OBL as women, which is then used to show how the USA is surely quite understanding on how women are treated there.

Yes.
I base things on evidence rather than propaganda.

No, you base things on how stupidly you can interpret them.

FireGarden

26th October 2007, 02:27 AM

So you respect the denigration of women it seems, whatever the excuse.

I don't think women are denigrated by what they wear.

Don't you ever read anything someone says? Pelosi went as a representative of the United States, then presented herself as another second class citizen in a propaganda photo with other second class citizens.

She visited a Mosque while in Syria and wore a headscarf. Just as Laura Bush wore a headscarf at the Vatican. You're like LGF -- pretending the point was that she visited Syria when your original quote was:

"Pelosi reference was a joke, because she looked like a joke when she, unlike L. Bush, put on a scarf when in Syria, alongside other scarfed, but not bagged, women."

Putting on a scarf did not make Pelosi a joke. She showed respect, just as Bush did. And I'm sure Bush wasn't the only one covering her hair at the Vatican.

Actually, I think in that case it leaves only one obvious conclusion which seems to escape you; and I am not the one making up this rule.

So the debate becomes a guessing game. Nice touch.

Care to tell me what is obvious?
You seem to be an expert on Quranic interpretation. And you seem to know all about the rules of abbrogation. Please share your wisdom.

Elind

26th October 2007, 07:02 AM

I don't think women are denigrated by what they wear.

Nor by what they are obligated to wear it seems. Your ignorance is astounding.

Putting on a scarf did not make Pelosi a joke. She showed respect, just as Bush did. And I'm sure Bush wasn't the only one covering her hair at the Vatican.

You miss the point yet again.

So the debate becomes a guessing game. Nice touch.

It's only a guess for those so challenged they can't guess the only answer possible. The rule applies to the placement in the Koran, not when (which is completely unknown) something was originally written. Are you seriously going to say you don't understand that?

Care to tell me what is obvious?

Not anymore. Waste of time.

FireGarden

26th October 2007, 08:51 AM

Nor by what they are obligated to wear it seems. Your ignorance is astounding.

You miss the point yet again.

No.
You pretend you were talking about something else.
You called Pelosi a joke because she wore a scarf in Syria. Women in Syria are not obligated to wear a scarf.

EG:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3531700.stm

Syrian First Lady:
http://www.syrianembassy.us/photogallery/syrian_photos/thefirstlady.jpg

http://imad_moustapha.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/02/women_entrepren.html

It's only a guess for those so challenged they can't guess the only answer possible. The rule applies to the placement in the Koran, not when (which is completely unknown) something was originally written.

Rubbish.
Where did you get that idea?
Abrogation is something done by God, not his editors.
See verse 2:106

If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar.

And besides, even if you want to order them by length (which is mostly what the editors did) Sura 109, The Disbelievers, is towards the end.

Here's what Muslims should do to Disbelievers:

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Want to change your mind about what abrogation means?

Not anymore. Waste of time.

Go on! Run!

Undesired Walrus

26th October 2007, 11:40 AM

What do you want, a complete post of the Koran for your "evidence"?

I would like that. But please don't tell me what happens in the end! Make sure you put some spoiler tags around that part.

Undesired Walrus

26th October 2007, 11:45 AM

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Hmm.. that is actually Mohammed speaking to somebody who suggested he try out their religion for a while. I don't think it is a general lesson in what to do to unbelievers.

Firegarden, the Quran is a tad harsh. I just don't see why that means we have to inject our own bossy bookmark into each page to stare disaprovingly up at the Muslim reading it.

Elind

26th October 2007, 02:27 PM

No.
You pretend you were talking about something else.
You called Pelosi a joke because she wore a scarf in Syria. Women in Syria are not obligated to wear a scarf.

Again, you ignore what I said about scarves and ignore what I said about dress codes imposed on Muslim women by men. You are pedant to the extreme in your arguments, if they can be called that.

Rubbish.
Where did you get that idea?
Abrogation is something done by God, not his editors.
See verse 2:106

Plenty of easy to find stuff on that for those interested. Much of it is akin to counting angels on the head of a pin, with so many optional interpretations as to make the exercise laughable; but what we are mostly concerned with is the simple things used by simple people like suicide bombers to justify their simple acts.

4th rule: abrogation.
If one text prescribes (or forbids) the entirety of what another text conversely forbids (or prescribes), one or the other text must be abrogated, i.e. considered null and void. If one is more recent, it is to be preferred. Otherwise, add certain commentators, if one is seemingly more demanding, it is to be preferred. But there are often disagreements, when such conflict resolutions are not readily available. (Another logically conceivable resolution, note, would be to particularize both premises to some extent—but I do not know if Islamic interpreters use this option.)
There is a Koranic text (2:106) saying that abrogation of a law occurs only when a better or similar one is promulgated (for some this implies that God, the author of the Koran, is the only abrogator or promulgator). This is understood at one level to refer to God’s abrogation through the Koran of some pre-Koranic laws. At a second reading, it may imply that there should be no unresolved contradictions within the Koran, which is doubtful considering the need for two of the previous three rules. Naturally, if one text has greater authority and reliability (e.g. Koran vs. hadith), it is to be preferred. But the law doctors wonder whether the lower text (hadith) may abrogate the higher (Koran) in certain cases.
On a formal level,
the major premise: "X is to do Y";
the minor: "X is not to do Y";
so, one or the other must indeed be abandoned in the conclusion.
The preference of the more recent (say, within the Koran, which is supposed chronologically ordered) is sound practice, though it is unclear why God would change His mind so quickly, before the earlier law has had time to be put into practice (if that is the case).

Want to change your mind about what abrogation means?

It means that anyone can find fool's arguments to read any meaning they want, if so motivated, but the above is one of the simplest.

Go on! Run!

Grow up child.

FireGarden

27th October 2007, 03:11 AM

Again, you ignore what I said about scarves and ignore what I said about dress codes imposed on Muslim women by men. You are pedant to the extreme in your arguments, if they can be called that.

You said Pelosi was a joke for wearing a scarf in Syria. Women in Syria are not forced to wear headscarves. As in the examples I gave.

If by "pedant" you mean that I don't let you change subjects, then go ahead and call me a pedant.

Plenty of easy to find stuff on that for those interested.

And how reliable is what you find?
And was it an oversight that you failed to give a link to what you copied and pasted?
http://www.thelogician.net/3_judaic_logic/3_islam_1.htm

That doesn't look like a Muslim source. And, even if he is correct, how does that help you show that Sura 109 (or any other verse) is abrogated? He does not say that abrogation is based on placement in the Quran, rather than order revealed. (Your so called "obvious" idea). If anything, he supports me more than you: "There is a Koranic text (2:106) saying that abrogation of a law occurs only when a better or similar one is promulgated (for some this implies that God, the author of the Koran, is the only abrogator or promulgator)."

Your source also says that abrogation isn't the only way of dealing with contradictions. This is important, because the idea of abrogation was introduced specifically because there were accusations of contradictions -- within the Quran compared to itself and with previous revelations. The latter is normally blamed on people rewriting God's law. The former is explained by God rewriting God's law. (And I'd like to see an example of a Muslim who says that someone other than God can abrogate a verse of the Quran.)

So given a contradiction, a Muslim doesn't have to throw away one verse in favour of another. They can use, according to YOUR source, rule number one: exception.

The major premise: "X is to do Y";
the minor: "X is not to do Y, when Z";
the putative conclusion: "X is to do Y, only when not Z".

Anyway, your source is certainly wrong regarding the Quran being chronologically ordered. The first verses revealed were 96:1-5
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/WhatIsQuran.html

Sura 96 has 19 verses, btw. The other verses were revealed at a later date, because the first complete chapter revealed was Sura 1 (which is a common prayer, and therefore put first -- mostly the order in the Quran is by length).

The last revealed was verse 5:3

Both of which are quoted as first and last in the film "The Message". As far as I know, all Muslims agree that they are the first and last. It also makes sense from context.

96:1-5 "Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot. Read, for your Lord is most Generous, Who teaches by means of the pen, teaches man what he does not know." ["Read" is sometimes translated as "recite". A recitation of the Quran is commonly called a reading of it.]

5:3 "Today I perfected your religion for you and completed my favor to you and have chosen for you Al-Islam as your religion."

So the Quran is most certainly not presented in chronological order.

but what we are mostly concerned with is the simple things used by simple people like suicide bombers to justify their simple acts.

They use politics.
That's the conclusion of people who have actually studied the subject. Like Robert Pape http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

[...] in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.

So the vast majority came from communist and socialist groups. And that from a population which is mostly Muslim.

Grow up child.

You're mean.
I'm telling mommy!

FireGarden

27th October 2007, 03:34 AM

Hmm.. that is actually Mohammed speaking to somebody who suggested he try out their religion for a while. I don't think it is a general lesson in what to do to unbelievers.

It is a Chapter titled "the Unbelievers". And it gives an example of what Muslims should do. Even if originally directed at Mohammed, the example is given in order that it be followed.

Firegarden, the Quran is a tad harsh. I just don't see why that means we have to inject our own bossy bookmark into each page to stare disaprovingly up at the Muslim reading it.

I'm not concerned that I am threatened with a hell I do not believe in.

But harsh is not the topic of debate.
The Quran does not give a green light to attack innocent people.

The Quran does allow war, but most of the people condemning Islam also believe there is such a thing as a just war.

The Quran does not permit aggression. 2:190 "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors"

Elind has to find where that is abrogated by something which says "Fight, even before they attack you. Lo! God loves the aggressors."

Undesired Walrus

27th October 2007, 04:37 AM

It is a Chapter titled "the Unbelievers". And it gives an example of what Muslims should do. Even if originally directed at Mohammed, the example is given in order that it be followed.

I'm not concerned that I am threatened with a hell I do not believe in.

But harsh is not the topic of debate.
The Quran does not give a green light to attack innocent people.

The Quran does allow war, but most of the people condemning Islam also believe there is such a thing as a just war.

The Quran does not permit aggression. 2:190 "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors"

Elind has to find where that is abrogated by something which says "Fight, even before they attack you. Lo! God loves the aggressors."

Well, you have to ask what 'Innocent' means in terms of Human life. You can manipulate it and say that innocent is those who follow Islam. Which can be justified later on in the texts. Also, you can say that those who do not follow the ways of Allah are declaring war on Islam, and the entire world thus becomes dar al-kufr. Then, you have a right to fight against those who 'fight against you'.

That said however, I think Allah would raise an eyebrow at how his work is being implimented today. as the Quran has absolutely no tolerance at all for burning living people alive. I'm sure a fair few did in the world trade center.

I do think Islam has an intrinsic problem with terrorism. I just don't think we need to get ourselves into a song and dance about it so much.

Elind

27th October 2007, 06:35 AM

You're mean.
I'm telling mommy!

Won't help. Mommy didn't raise you to think very well.

You constantly change the issue, or misrepresent it or ignore attempts to clarify, given benefit of doubt, a misunderstanding.

Exchanges with you remind me of "Get Fuzzy" scripts. About as meaningful, although quite illustrative of certain mindsets.

Elind

27th October 2007, 06:48 AM

Elind has to find where that is abrogated by something which says "Fight, even before they attack you. Lo! God loves the aggressors."

Surely you have studied this as much as you pretend? Examples abound.

Prophet, make war on the unvbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate. 9:73

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous. 9:123

....He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His Apostle and then is overtaken by death shall be rewarded by God. The Unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. 4:95-101

The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for Satan. Fight then against the friends of Satan. Say, "Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil." 4:74-78

Infidel, BTW, means everyone between the Pope and me, and I would guess you too, but sometimes I wonder.

Gurdur

27th October 2007, 06:55 AM

Elind, you might have a bit more success with your agenda if you didn't sound so bitter, paranoid and simply above all whiney all the time.

Just a helpful suggestion.

Mind you, I do like reading your posts. Call it Schadenfreude on my part. :)

Elind

27th October 2007, 07:08 AM

FireGarden

28th October 2007, 04:12 AM

Surely you have studied this as much as you pretend? Examples abound.

You've still found nothing which indicates that God loves aggressors.

Prophet, make war on the unvbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate. 9:73

But these aren't unbelievers in general.
Pickthal translates it as "strive against..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm
Which translation are you using?

And the verses following indicate that these are hypocrites who joined with Mohammed for material gains. "And of them is he who made a covenant with Allah (saying): If He give us of His bounty we will give alms and become of the righteous. Yet when He gave them of His bounty, they hoarded it and turned away, averse; "

So they promised to give to charity, but then (when made rich) hoarded their riches.

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous. 9:123

Not those who live around you.
According to Pickthall, the "disbelievers who are near to you". And the context makes it clear that it refers to kin. In verse 113 it says that it is not for the Prophet (or Muslims) to pray for the forgiveness of their next of kin who are without faith. Abraham is then given as an example of one who prayed for his father. But it is only God who decides. So don't bother praying.

I don't see where this allows Muslims to be aggressors. At most, it allows them to fight their brothers if their brothers are on the other side. It does not say that is sufficient cause. It does not give them the right to be aggressors -- who the Quran still maintains are unloved by God.

....He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His Apostle and then is overtaken by death shall be rewarded by God. The Unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. 4:95-101

Interesting that this isn't a quote but a paraphrase. And with poor indication of the editing. Either you or your source knows what is being discussed. "Inveterate" means "having a habit of long standing". Pickthall translates verse 4:101 as

"And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you."

Which tells Muslims that it is okay to shorten their prayers (or perhaps even hide their faith) if they fear being attacked. Such fears may well be grounded, because the disbelievers had formed a habit of attacking Muslims -- the disbelievers did not hide their enmity.

There is much mention in verse 4:95-101 of Muslims being refugees. Those that flee their homes will be rewarded by God. This interpretation is so obvious -- and the way it has been twisted by your source is so obvious -- that your source cannot have any honesty.

Your source makes it sound like Muslims are being called to leave their homes and fight in a foreign land. They are not. They are being told that if they flee their homes because of persecution, they still have a reward coming to them. Pichthall makes no mention of fighting in 4:95-101

Your source is hugely dishonest. No wonder you gave no link. They probably ask you not to out of embarrassment.

The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for Satan. Fight then against the friends of Satan. Say, "Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil." 4:74-78

Again, your source must know the context but thinks you are so stupid that you will not look it up. They insult you. All you had to do was read the verses indicated.

The cause of this battle is clear. How can Muslims not fight to protect those who are oppressed? To protect people who are shouting out: "Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!" -- That's from verse 75, within the reference your source gives.

This actually refers to historical battles. And the unbelievers are not accused of fighting for Satan. They are accused of fighting for their Idols. Which makes sense, because these particular unbelievers are the Idol-worshippers who controlled Mecca.

So, being given in [4:74-8] is an example of a just war. And I know that you, Elind, believe there is such a thing as a just war.

FireGarden

28th October 2007, 04:34 AM

I do think Islam has an intrinsic problem with terrorism. I just don't think we need to get ourselves into a song and dance about it so much.

It's a bit difficult to say the problem is intrinsic to Islam when the majority of Muslims do not interpret things the way you suggest they could.

The conclusions of people like Pape (who I quoted before) are that the motivations are political. Indeed, he says that the majority of suicide bombers in Lebanon came from Communist and Socialist groups. Not Muslim. "....eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians. "

Elind

28th October 2007, 06:40 AM

You've still found nothing which indicates that God loves aggressors.

One person's aggressor is another's "freedom fighter".

And I know that you, Elind, believe there is such a thing as a just war.

:confused: Of course, and haven't you just proved that?

Your response impresses me more than your earlier comments and I am unqualified to counter it in such detail, if indeed there are grounds to do so; however you speak as a "theologian" would, from one perspective; meaning that theology is the method of finding any meaning desired in religious texts.

I base my interpretations on more mundane analysis, such as hearing and reading what less gentle Muslims than you (or you represent) actually say and do and justify, and real life examples abound.

Most people of all religions take the "word of God" literally and in the case of the Koran in particular, few are qualified to "translate" it, even in ancient Arabic. The truth is that the millions read it or are taught it with the meanings my quoted versions indicate, and that is reflected in simple facts on the ground, from Arab nations' school books teaching hatred of Jews and infidels, and suicide bombers the world over.

Undesired Walrus

28th October 2007, 06:56 AM

It's a bit difficult to say the problem is intrinsic to Islam when the majority of Muslims do not interpret things the way you suggest they could.

I didn't say within Muslims, I said within Islam.

"He alone is God in the heavens and in the earth."

"The command belongs to God alone. He commands you not to worship anyone except Him. This is the right way of life."

The above phrases are not advocating violence, nor advocating peace. Regardless, it is an absolutist phrase.

I cannot see how there is not an intrinsic problem with violence within any absolutist ideology. Make no mistake, I don't think this makes Muslims in any way different people to the rest of Humanity, but instead a demonstration of a certain feature of humanity, good and bad. It is just important not to be passive about it.

FireGarden

28th October 2007, 10:15 AM

I cannot see how there is not an intrinsic problem with violence within any absolutist ideology. Make no mistake, I don't think this makes Muslims in any way different people to the rest of Humanity, but instead a demonstration of a certain feature of humanity, good and bad. It is just important not to be passive about it.

Then you say it yourself. The problem is with people. The ideology itself needn't be absolutist, people will find ways of being rigid within it.

The Quran is taken to be the final word in Islam. But people still argue about what it means.

The Quran actually addresses this. Muslims must have been forming subgroups and arguing about the meaning of the Quran even before it was finished. Verse 3:7 says:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/003.htm

He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

So all the hair-splitting about shades of meaning is actually frowned upon. It actually accuses those who try to base their faith on such endeavours of trying to cause dissent amongst Muslims. It implies they would do better to base their faith on the things which are clear -- the things, perhaps, which don't start arguments. That would probably leave very little!

There is another version of that verse, btw, which misses out a full stop. http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Meaning_of_Sura_%283:7%29

As a result, some people are (along with God) supposed to know the meaning of the allegorical verses. Which just goes to show how difficult it is to get people to stop interpreting a text.

FireGarden

28th October 2007, 10:55 AM

One person's aggressor is another's "freedom fighter".

Who the aggressor is should be obvious to the participants. Others may argue about who started. But the participants, I think, would know. And if they give a damn about being judged, then that should affect their choice of action. If they don't worry about being judged by God, then in what sense do they give a damn about religion?

Your response impresses me more than your earlier comments

Thank you.

however you speak as a "theologian" would, from one perspective; meaning that theology is the method of finding any meaning desired in religious texts.

I don't think I've used any theology -- or anything other than reading what the text says.

The interpretations I gave are very literal. I'm not making judgements of these verses. If I were, I wouldn't be that supportive. One tells believers to harden their hearts rather than pray for relatives to be forgiven. I don't support that attitude. I merely report what I think the text means.

And I've been on this board many times arguing that people with a cause to fight should use diplomacy instead.

I base my interpretations on more mundane analysis, such as hearing and reading what less gentle Muslims than you (or you represent) actually say and do and justify, and real life examples abound.

I find this a strange method of determining what a text means. Why would you use it? At least go by majority opinion. But even better would be to read it yourself. Preferably with more than one translation. If you're really interested, ask questions on Muslim forums.

btw, to clear up any doubt.
I'm an atheist. But my parents are Muslims.

Most people of all religions take the "word of God" literally and in the case of the Koran in particular, few are qualified to "translate" it, even in ancient Arabic.

Most Muslims aren't Arabs, so this doesn't apply generally. But the Quran is not written in an ancient dead language. Most Arabs that speak Modern Standard Arabic would cope quite well with it. They may need a dictionary, but it wouldn't be like learning a new language.

Some verses would need the historical context. But that wouldn't be too hard to find. And isn't a matter of language, anyway.

The truth is that the millions read it or are taught it with the meanings my quoted versions indicate

Do you know who the translator was in your version?
Who was your source of those quotes?
Can you find any Islamic sites with those quotes?

Elind

28th October 2007, 07:18 PM

I appreciate your response. But I don't have time to do so at this time. I hope we can continue, in a better vein, in a few days.

Elind

29th October 2007, 08:17 PM

You've still found nothing which indicates that God loves aggressors.

I don't really follow your point. Do you want to discuss dictionary definitions now? God loves those who fight infidels and so on. Sounds pretty aggresive to me, and there is no point in suggesting that "fight" means debate on forums.

But these aren't unbelievers in general.
Pickthal translates it as "strive against..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm
Which translation are you using?

I did a little research. Just Google some of these Koran references. You will find many hits and some do have slightly different translations, but all are obviously the same statement. If you want to pick and choose for the most ambiguous and try hard for a softer interpretation, you have to bend over pretty far to find one. The point though is, which interpretation do you think the average utterly uneducated Imam is going to take when he is trying to raise a solid hatred of the Jews and their lackeys?

And the verses following indicate that these are hypocrites who joined with Mohammed for material gains. "And of them is he who made a covenant with Allah (saying): If He give us of His bounty we will give alms and become of the righteous. Yet when He gave them of His bounty, they hoarded it and turned away, averse; "

So they promised to give to charity, but then (when made rich) hoarded their riches.

And what does that prove? Mohammed no doubt had his good days and bad. The good ones were perhaps when he had finished with a newly donated virgin, and the bad when he really wished Allah had invented Viagra already.

Not those who live around you.
According to Pickthall, the "disbelievers who are near to you". And the context makes it clear that it refers to kin. In verse 113 it says that it is not for the Prophet (or Muslims) to pray for the forgiveness of their next of kin who are without faith. Abraham is then given as an example of one who prayed for his father. But it is only God who decides. So don't bother praying.

In this age we are all near to each other.

I don't see where this allows Muslims to be aggressors. At most, it allows them to fight their brothers if their brothers are on the other side. It does not say that is sufficient cause. It does not give them the right to be aggressors -- who the Quran still maintains are unloved by God.

....without just cause of course. So which news do you read every day? The theoretical theology news or the other one? (Sarcasm is just to make a point)

Interesting that this isn't a quote but a paraphrase. And with poor indication of the editing. Either you or your source knows what is being discussed. "Inveterate" means "having a habit of long standing". Pickthall translates verse 4:101 as

"And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you."

....and what does one do about open enemies? Wait until they kill you?

Which tells Muslims that it is okay to shorten their prayers (or perhaps even hide their faith) if they fear being attacked. Such fears may well be grounded, because the disbelievers had formed a habit of attacking Muslims -- the disbelievers did not hide their enmity.

Yes, that is a useful phrase for people like suicide bombers in the west because they can then party and fornicate to their heart's content (so as to fit in with the degenerates) without sin prior to committing their acts of self defense. The 911 killers did so.

There is much mention in verse 4:95-101 of Muslims being refugees. Those that flee their homes will be rewarded by God. This interpretation is so obvious -- and the way it has been twisted by your source is so obvious -- that your source cannot have any honesty.

Try Google. I didn't read it that way.

Your source makes it sound like Muslims are being called to leave their homes and fight in a foreign land. They are not. They are being told that if they flee their homes because of persecution, they still have a reward coming to them. Pichthall makes no mention of fighting in 4:95-101

Your source is hugely dishonest. No wonder you gave no link. They probably ask you not to out of embarrassment.

There are many links and references. Here is one you won't like:

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Oct 13, 2006 at 15:00
My dear Fahad rabina yu3alimak akthar wa akthar as you shall see it is either that your command of the Arabic language is poor or your command of the Arabic language is indeed poor. So which one is it?
So let us see what Q4:94 says: "the usual blah...blah...blah then we have the following words in question:
wa means: and
al-mujaahiduna means: the holy fighters. The root of the word is JHD and the stem is: mufaa3iluna.
Fi means; in
sabeel means: path/cause
Allah means: Allah
And then the usual blah....blah....blah end of aya.
So the above few words "wa al-mujaahiduna fi sabeel Allah" means: And those who fight (jihad or holy war) in the case/path of Allah."
And I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Now if we turn to Arabic speakers that translated the Quran as in the case of Dawood the word al-mujaahiduna is translated as: those who fight in the casue of Allah.
Now if we turn to Pickthall who was an Englishman who never lived (as far as I know) in an Arabic speaking country and was converted by tableghhes and whose translation is very tedentious translates the word al-mujaahiduna as: "strive in the cause of Allah" which is a very wrong translation.
The word "those who strive" means: al-mujtahidun (mufta3ilun) a very different stem from the root JHD.
So if the Quranic word would have been: al-mujtahiduna I would agree with you. But it is not so your claim is bogus and you need to learn Arabic ya ayuha al-faylasoof al-kabeer.
The translation provided by Henrik in this case is not a bad translation.
Now I will be waiting for your reply with great anticipation.
And like I said: Shame on you for being a follower of a religion that brutalized your ancestors.

Again, your source must know the context but thinks you are so stupid that you will not look it up. They insult you. All you had to do was read the verses indicated.

:shrug: I read many sources and read many news reports. Am I to accept what you say alone?

The cause of this battle is clear. How can Muslims not fight to protect those who are oppressed? To protect people who are shouting out: "Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!" -- That's from verse 75, within the reference your source gives.

A beautifully simple and ambiguous call to battle (war) don't you think?

This actually refers to historical battles. And the unbelievers are not accused of fighting for Satan. They are accused of fighting for their Idols. Which makes sense, because these particular unbelievers are the Idol-worshippers who controlled Mecca.

Atheists and Jews and other Infidels are most certainly accused of fighting for Satan, as represented by any idol. Have you ever watched that most democratic of Arab states programs via Memri. Blood suckers they are.

Texas

29th October 2007, 08:24 PM

Elind

29th October 2007, 08:42 PM

Who the aggressor is should be obvious to the participants. Others may argue about who started. But the participants, I think, would know. And if they give a damn about being judged, then that should affect their choice of action. If they don't worry about being judged by God, then in what sense do they give a damn about religion?

Sounds to me like you have distilled this down to one criteria. Aggressor; which is according to you haram.

Surely you realize that all justifications by religious murderers are self justified by some alleged prior aggression or another?

Thank you.I am assuming that you are genuine in your interpretations, but you are not managing to convince.

I don't think I've used any theology -- or anything other than reading what the text says.

You are interpreting religious text and finding meanings that someone else doesn't. That is theology.

The interpretations I gave are very literal. I'm not making judgements of these verses. If I were, I wouldn't be that supportive. One tells believers to harden their hearts rather than pray for relatives to be forgiven. I don't support that attitude. I merely report what I think the text means.So you don't think some parts of the Koran (as the word of Allah) are correct? That would get you stoned in many parts of the world.

And I've been on this board many times arguing that people with a cause to fight should use diplomacy instead.That is incredibly naive, if you think it is an absolute. Do you think there is any point at all in applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers?

I find this a strange method of determining what a text means. Why would you use it? At least go by majority opinion. But even better would be to read it yourself. Preferably with more than one translation. If you're really interested, ask questions on Muslim forums.
I am talking of the way it is interpreted by Muslims. Theoreticals are irrelevant unless they are somehow applied to stopping the fundamentalists, which isn't happening and won't because theorists (not terrorists) don't act; they just talk; terrorists act.

btw, to clear up any doubt.
I'm an atheist. But my parents are Muslims.Good of you to clarify, but frankly it raises as many questions as it answers. You presumably don't read Arabic since you rely on one Englishman's translations of the Koran, so probably you are not Arab, and I suspect your parents are lapsed Muslims now living without threat of violence for that, or you would have been cast out long ago.

Your adamant defense of the Islamic faith however is puzzling, if you are an Atheist, given how ridiculous the concept is, unless perhaps you are a Pacifist first.

Most Muslims aren't Arabs, so this doesn't apply generally. But the Quran is not written in an ancient dead language. Most Arabs that speak Modern Standard Arabic would cope quite well with it. They may need a dictionary, but it wouldn't be like learning a new language.As I understand it, it is written in old forms of Arabic and even Aramaic, and Arabic is notoriously difficult to translate consistently because the grammar has words that are only defined by context in sentences. A simple example is how there is always more than one way to pronounce and translate names English. Couple that with 1000 year plus text and language idiosyncracies, and interpretations will often differ; but I listen to what the Imams say they are, and that is mostly pretty foul.

Some verses would need the historical context. But that wouldn't be too hard to find. And isn't a matter of language, anyway.See above.

Do you know who the translator was in your version?
Who was your source of those quotes?
Can you find any Islamic sites with those quotes?Plenty. Google "Koran xx.xxx" or "Koran xx:xxx" or Quran and so on. Takes a little work, but there is loads of it, on all sides.

Elind

29th October 2007, 09:01 PM

GreNME

29th October 2007, 09:04 PM

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has no central tenet or leader such as the Pope. In the Islamic tradition all religion is "local" as in it is interpreted by the local Imam as he sees fit. There is a very good case to be made that many of these local Imams are very radicalized and that the number is growing with certain very fanatical sects becoming ascendant within the religion. The Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia is one example.

Having known a few imams myself, I have to say that isn't quite the case. :)

There are conferences, general consensuses, and guidelines for teaching that takes place on local levels. The radicalization taking place is not due to decentralization, but due to some charismatic individuals taking advantage of a simmering disenchantment with how Muslims are typically characterized (ever notice they're usually bad guys in films?) and in hot-bed areas the cultural outrage on issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's not unlike how charismatic white power propaganda attempts to suck in young, mostly idealistic white kids who might be persuaded into believing all or some of their propaganda to gain members.

There are some personal interpretations as far as the religion goes, but it's typically based on the scholarly works from one school of thought or another. It's not very different than the way local pastors or priests use sermons with context their congregations understand to pass along the messages they have learned to teach and disseminate. The difference is in the 'denominational' splits, which are greater than the Catholic/Protestant/etc rifts in general dogma.

Texas

29th October 2007, 09:11 PM

Having known a few imams myself, I have to say that isn't quite the case. :)

There are conferences, general consensuses, and guidelines for teaching that takes place on local levels. The radicalization taking place is not due to decentralization, but due to some charismatic individuals taking advantage of a simmering disenchantment with how Muslims are typically characterized (ever notice they're usually bad guys in films?) and in hot-bed areas the cultural outrage on issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's not unlike how charismatic white power propaganda attempts to suck in young, mostly idealistic white kids who might be persuaded into believing all or some of their propaganda to gain members.

There are some personal interpretations as far as the religion goes, but it's typically based on the scholarly works from one school of thought or another. It's not very different than the way local pastors or priests use sermons with context their congregations understand to pass along the messages they have learned to teach and disseminate. The difference is in the 'denominational' splits, which are greater than the Catholic/Protestant/etc rifts in general dogma.Hey we seem to be following each other around. I am enjoying this. I lived 10 years in the Middle East and have known a few Imams myself. Here is the problem I see with Islam. It is where Christianity was before the enlightenment and the reformation. It is not only Islamisists acts of terror against "infidels" it is the mass intercine slaughter within their sects. Until Islam goes through their own enlightenment period they will never be able to reconcile their religious obligations with their need to interact with a 21st century world. That is only my opinion but it is based on some knowledge of the region and worldview.

GreNME

29th October 2007, 09:11 PM

Not THE difference, and let us not forget that Popes have been as bad or worse than OBL in the past; BUT the inconvenient truth for all those who regularly bring up McVeigh or the like as apologies for Islam is that we don't see many of them these days. We do see the other variety daily however.

Never heard of the Tamil Tigers?

October 28th (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hO9bckIBZuxgOcwiJk1GMYF2JG1A)

October 25th (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7062498.stm)

October 22nd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2196687,00.html)

October 16-17 (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/17/asia/AS-GEN-Sri-Lanka-Civil-War.php)

I love it when people assume that Muslim terrorists are the only ones currently active on a regular basis. It shows just how biased our news outlets are in actually reporting what goes on in the world around us.

GreNME

29th October 2007, 09:16 PM

I lived 10 years in the Middle East and have known a few Imams myself.

My new rule is that using the "lived in the Middle East" as a rhetorical tool pretty much ends the conversation. It's not a competition.

Texas

29th October 2007, 09:18 PM

My new rule is that using the "lived in the Middle East" as a rhetorical tool pretty much ends the conversation. It's not a competition.
I didn't mean it to be. Sorry.

GreNME

29th October 2007, 09:29 PM

It's not your fault, to be honest. It's just that I'm not really willing to get into a competition of credentials. I specifically try to avoid qualifying how much I have personal involvement like that, because I know full well that such personal involvement doesn't mean anything if all of your interpersonal relations were of a mostly singular type, and people tend to stick to like (or somewhat like) people.

I disagree with your assessment of Islam, because you're comparing it too directly with Christianity in your context. Islam had its 'enlightenment' period, but the Ottoman Empire eventually devolved much of the region into a group of cultures of extremes, and since the fall of the Ottomans the region hasn't seen a whole lot of peace to re-establish itself in a Western context. In the parts that have, things are moving along quite nicely. A simple exmple of this is to look at Western mosques as they've sprung up, which have adapted quite well in most cases and still mostly follow the same hierarchical motifs as the ones in the Mid-East, but with better communication infrastructure for their members.

Texas

29th October 2007, 10:02 PM

I disagree with your assessment of Islam, because you're comparing it too directly with Christianity in your context. Islam had its 'enlightenment' period, but the Ottoman Empire eventually devolved much of the region into a group of cultures of extremes, and since the fall of the Ottomans the region hasn't seen a whole lot of peace to re-establish itself in a Western context. In the parts that have, things are moving along quite nicely. A simple exmple of this is to look at Western mosques as they've sprung up, which have adapted quite well in most cases and still mostly follow the same hierarchical motifs as the ones in the Mid-East, but with better communication infrastructure for their members.
I'm curious as to when the Islamic "enlightenment" came about? Was it after the Crusades? If so, what form did it take? Is it not still a central tenet of Islam for a worldwide Caliphate? Is it still not a tenet of Islam that all government must be based on Islamic law? Islam is not only a religion it is a form of governance whereas the west has put up a wall between the Church and State. Are you saying that Islam had separated church and state prior to the Ottoman Empire or that there are majority Islamic states that now are secular with religious freedom guaranteed to all?

GreNME

29th October 2007, 10:39 PM

I'm curious as to when the Islamic "enlightenment" came about? Was it after the Crusades? If so, what form did it take? Is it not still a central tenet of Islam for a worldwide Caliphate? Is it still not a tenet of Islam that all government must be based on Islamic law? Islam is not only a religion it is a form of governance whereas the west has put up a wall between the Church and State. Are you saying that Islam had separated church and state prior to the Ottoman Empire or that there are majority Islamic states that now are secular with religious freedom guaranteed to all?

Still using Anglo-Western comparisons, there.

FireGarden

30th October 2007, 03:09 AM

I don't really follow your point. Do you want to discuss dictionary definitions now?

I want you to show me where the command to fight, but not to be the aggressor, is abrogated.

If I tell you to cross the road, but never to do so without looking both ways. And then I later tell you to cross the road -- have I negated my advice that you should never do so without looking both ways?

I did a little research. Just Google some of these Koran references. You will find many hits and some do have slightly different translations, but all are obviously the same statement.

Did you find an Islamic site with your versions? The ones which were heavily edited -- omiting references to Muslims fleeing persecution.

Why give a paraphrase rather than quote the verses cited? Because the paraphrase is blown to pieces if the verse are quoted in full. The 4:74-78 "quote" especially.

If you want to pick and choose for the most ambiguous and try hard for a softer interpretation,

I hardly did that.
Pickthall is a very famous translator of the Quran. Which is probably why sacred texts -- a non-Muslim site -- feels confident in using him. Even though the language tries way to hard with its "Ye" and "thou" etc.

The point though is, which interpretation do you think the average utterly uneducated Imam is going to take when he is trying to raise a solid hatred of the Jews and their lackeys?

The point is not that. You make claims about what Islam is. Not what the most ignorant may possibly think it to be. Or what people who deliberately want to change its message may say it is. You know the kind of people. The ones that cherry pick and quote out of context.

And what does that prove? Mohammed no doubt had his good days and bad.

I'm not trying to prove anything historical. I'm telling you what the verse say. The verses are about people who made promises they didn't keep. A clear example is given. The context is not mysterious.

In this age we are all near to each other.

If only we could see this.
But that part of the Quran is about people praying for forgiveness for their relatives. Again, examples are given. It is not mysterious.

....and what does one do about open enemies? Wait until they kill you?

There is much mention in verse 4:95-101 of Muslims being refugees. That is one thing they are told to do. Not advised to do. Told to do. Hiding their faith is allowed if they cannot flee. If they can flee they must. Exceptions are made for "the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way." [4:98]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/004.htm

Yes, that is a useful phrase for people like suicide bombers in the west because they can then party and fornicate to their heart's content (so as to fit in with the degenerates) without sin prior to committing their acts of self defense. The 911 killers did so.

See above.
This is not about covert operations. It is about protecting yourself in a place where you cannot flee to safety. The 911 killers were not refugees. Therefore, they had no dispensation to hide their faith.

Verse 97 specifically condemns those that try to excuse their sins by blaming their oppressors. It asks them "Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein?"

And then gives the exceptions I noted before. If the situation is so bad that you feel you must hide your faith and, at the same time, you can flee... then you must flee. You can't just sit there and hide your faith.

Try Google. I didn't read it that way.

Can you explain why?
Verses 4:95-101 is clearly about refugees and how to respond to oppression.

There are many links and references. Here is one you won't like:

...like Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/60248

Great Islamic site!

I like the way your source removes all references to refugees and replaces them with technical terms like "blah, blah, blah". That term, of course, means "I know you won't read the verse. You are way too gullible. And I also know you believe in such a thing as a just war. And I know that mention of refugees may make you think that these verses are addressing such matters." Isn't technical jargon brilliant.

"al-jihad fi sabil Allah" means "striving in the way of God"

It's not just Pickthall that makes this claim.

Returning from a battle, Mohammed is supposed to have said: "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad; the jihad of the soul." -- The spiritual striving is a greater striving.

But, however you define jihad, you still have the refugees and the oppression -- a cause for war. The context is clear. Hence its replacement with "blah, blah, blah."

I read many sources and read many news reports. Am I to accept what you say alone?

The whole context of refugees fleeing and oppression against Muslims is missing from your quotes. Finding that context was as easy as looking up the cited verses.

Your initial reaction leads me to suspect you were unaware of the context of the quotes. I respect your initial reaction. This new reaction is difficult for me to understand. Are you pretending that you don't understand what the text says? Are you going to pretend that Pickthall can get away with publishing (in front of countless scholars) a translation that has so many references to refugees that aren't really meant to be there? Come on!

FireGarden

30th October 2007, 04:04 AM

You are interpreting religious text and finding meanings that someone else doesn't. That is theology.

I am making a literal reading of the text. Where have I assumed things you find hard to accept?

So you don't think some parts of the Koran (as the word of Allah) are correct?

Yes. Especially the references to God. I'm an atheist.

That is incredibly naive, if you think it is an absolute. Do you think there is any point at all in applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers?

Yes. To deprive him of his hordes of followers. I think that is better than giving him a recruiting drive, which is what Bush has done.

I am talking of the way it is interpreted by Muslims.

Which is why I suggest you talk to Muslims. My family is Muslim. What I relate to you IS how the Quran is interpreted by Muslims.

Good of you to clarify, but frankly it raises as many questions as it answers. You presumably don't read Arabic since you rely on one Englishman's translations of the Koran, so probably you are not Arab, and I suspect your parents are lapsed Muslims now living without threat of violence for that, or you would have been cast out long ago.

I am Arabic, actually. In Britain since I was two.
I don't read Arabic well. My parents speak to me in Arabic, and always have done. I understand them very well. But that's a regional dialect. It's not a million miles from Modern Standard Arabic, but different enough that I find it hard to understand Arabic news, which is normally in MSA -- an "international" Arabic.

As for my parents being lapsed...
Quite the reverse. Although always Muslims, they were not particularly religious when I was young. Hence, I am not religious -- you try teaching a 10 year old! I do not even know how to pray in an Islamic fashion. I've not been that interested. My parents pray five times a day -- or as close to that as they can manage.

When I was younger, I used to fast. It was fun. I didn't regard it as any more religious than many athiests regard Christmas. I stopped when my father asked me "If you really don't believe, then why do you fast?" I didn't want to create any doubt in his mind.

I most certainly do know how my parents interpret the Quran. I've had the same arguments about Islam with them that I encourage you to have with Muslims. I've addressed the violence, the ritual, the baseless traditions. All of it with them. And with uncles and aunts and family friends -- who I have visited in an Arabic country.

Your adamant defense of the Islamic faith however is puzzling, if you are an Atheist, given how ridiculous the concept is, unless perhaps you are a Pacifist first.

I'm not defending Islam. I've already told you I disagree with it. But I disagree with what it actually says -- not with a strawman version of it.

I'm trying to give you a more accurate idea of what most Muslims believe.

As I understand it, it is written in old forms of Arabic and even Aramaic, and Arabic is notoriously difficult to translate consistently because the grammar has words that are only defined by context in sentences.

It's Arabic and written down in the script used by educated Arabs at the time. You and I are currently using Roman script, but we are writing in English.

You may mean that when the Quran was originally written down, they did not use the marks which indicate vowels and differentiate some of the letters. I'm not sure when they were added.

The result is that some words here and there are disputed. There are also other differences resulting from poor scribing -- I mentioned one in a post earlier: verse 3:7

But none of this changes what Muslims believe. They believe the Quran is unchanged -- even though differences can be found between various Qurans. I think verse 3:7 is the best example, because it has commentary which makes it clear that what is involved is not a translation error. I wrote the skepticwiki entry, btw: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Meaning_of_Sura_(3:7)

:D

Plenty. Google "Koran xx.xxx" or "Koran xx:xxx" or Quran and so on. Takes a little work, but there is loads of it, on all sides.

It's not difficult to post a link, Elind. And if you know the name of the translator used, then please post that too.

Elind

30th October 2007, 06:47 AM

Never heard of the Tamil Tigers?

October 28th (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hO9bckIBZuxgOcwiJk1GMYF2JG1A)

October 25th (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7062498.stm)

October 22nd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2196687,00.html)

October 16-17 (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/17/asia/AS-GEN-Sri-Lanka-Civil-War.php)

I love it when people assume that Muslim terrorists are the only ones currently active on a regular basis. It shows just how biased our news outlets are in actually reporting what goes on in the world around us.

I hate it when people keep bringing up unrelated examples of atrocity to apologize for the origins of another.

The Tamils are a separatist ethnic group. Their enemies are specific and they have specific goals. There are others you could have mentioned too. They are not however doing God's work against the infidels everywhere without any rationally definable territorial goal.

Elind

30th October 2007, 07:01 AM

Your initial reaction leads me to suspect you were unaware of the context of the quotes. I respect your initial reaction. This new reaction is difficult for me to understand. Are you pretending that you don't understand what the text says? Are you going to pretend that Pickthall can get away with publishing (in front of countless scholars) a translation that has so many references to refugees that aren't really meant to be there? Come on!

There appear to be disagreements with his translation, which is not to say that it is wrong everywhere. I gave one that sounded as if it was valid, although I cannot judge.

However, we are getting sidetracked here. You seem to always to come back to the self defense, persecution, refugee issue as if all Islamic terrorism is based on valid arguments for that (regardless of whether their methods are justifiable).

Muslims have been largely persecuted by Muslims in the history I see, including cynical exploitation of the Palestinians, and I see no references by you of the obvious persecution of other religions by Muslim societies. The persecution and expulsion of Jews from Muslim lands predates Israel by far, which is probably the primary reason for their opposition to peace for so long.

Christians and other minorities have not fared much better, even in the more liberal countries.

Your defense of Islam as a religion of peace falls on history alone, including last weeks or days, and theological interpretations of calls for death as being in some broader context are obviously not shared by millions.

Elind

30th October 2007, 07:27 AM

:
That is incredibly naive, if you think it is an absolute. Do you think there is any point at all in applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers?Yes. To deprive him of his hordes of followers. I think that is better than giving him a recruiting drive, which is what Bush has done.

That is incredibly naive. Your defense is beginning to sound as if it is essentially a defense of your parents, who are no doubt what you say. That is not the image however that countless attitude surveys and real world acts presents.

If you think "negotiating" with OBL is valid you must also think that his crowd have valid issues to negotiate about. You must also think that that would not result in a level of Victory for their methods and perception of what the world needs. Insane.

Which is why I suggest you talk to Muslims. My family is Muslim. What I relate to you IS how the Quran is interpreted by Muslims.
Tell me what your family does daily to isolate and discredit and condemn Islamist fanatics. Have you demonstrated in front of the crazies' mosques? Did you do so before the tube bombing when their rants were tolerated?

I am Arabic, actually. In Britain since I was two.
I don't read Arabic well. My parents speak to me in Arabic, and always have done. I understand them very well. But that's a regional dialect. It's not a million miles from Modern Standard Arabic, but different enough that I find it hard to understand Arabic news, which is normally in MSA -- an "international" Arabic.I apologize if my assumptions were offensive in any way. That was simply how I posed the questions I had.

As for my parents being lapsed...
Quite the reverse. Although always Muslims, they were not particularly religious when I was young. Hence, I am not religious -- you try teaching a 10 year old! I do not even know how to pray in an Islamic fashion. I've not been that interested. My parents pray five times a day -- or as close to that as they can manage.But why do they do so if they are not more interested in their children knowing the truth? Social convention? What Hirshi calls passive Islam?

When I was younger, I used to fast. It was fun. I didn't regard it as any more religious than many athiests regard Christmas. I stopped when my father asked me "If you really don't believe, then why do you fast?" I didn't want to create any doubt in his mind.
Yes I know it is fun. Ramadan in Saudi beats Christmas easy. Pretend work, lots of sleep and entire nights of eating and greeting, for a month.

I most certainly do know how my parents interpret the Quran. I've had the same arguments about Islam with them that I encourage you to have with Muslims. I've addressed the violence, the ritual, the baseless traditions. All of it with them. And with uncles and aunts and family friends -- who I have visited in an Arabic country.Have you tried the same arguments with anyone not in your immediate family?

I'm not defending Islam. I've already told you I disagree with it. But I disagree with what it actually says -- not with a strawman version of it.

I'm trying to give you a more accurate idea of what most Muslims believe.
I didn't much care what most Muslims believed either until they fly into buildings and riot and kill over stupid cartoons and worse. Your family is the exception, not the rule, as far as the way Islam reaches out to touch others is concerned. You seem to not want to accept that.

It's not difficult to post a link, Elind. And if you know the name of the translator used, then please post that too.Sorry, but I find too many links to start a discussion on the finer points of translation. The point is that while there may be disagreement on some, your broader perspective trying to step back far enough that the rough edges become blurred and seen in some other light, is not how the majority seem to do it. Hamas doesn't. Al Qaeda doesn't. Hizbullah doesn't. The president of Iran who starts every speech with a hope for the end of the world, doesn't, and then we have the Saudis.......

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2201805,00.html

GreNME

30th October 2007, 08:03 AM

I hate it when people keep bringing up unrelated examples of atrocity to apologize for the origins of another.

The Tamils are a separatist ethnic group. Their enemies are specific and they have specific goals. There are others you could have mentioned too. They are not however doing God's work against the infidels everywhere without any rationally definable territorial goal.

It isn't about origins, it's about terrorism. The Tamils are considered a terrorist organization by more than 30 countries, including the US. Terrorism is not a phenomenon that is integral to any one religion or culture. It is a tactic.

No one is apologizing for terrorism here. Some of us are saying it isn't so easy as singling out one group as the epitome of terrorists today. The meanest people are always the people who are meanest to you, in the general sense, but in the broader sense the reality doesn't always line up the same.

Elind

30th October 2007, 08:57 AM

Many people claim the US is a terrorist nation, humiliating and killing peoples all over the world, particularly Muslims, for no reason. Pick your sides.

This discussion was about ISLAM driven terrorism, and yes I see them as "meaner" to me than the Tamils. Does that preclude discussing them as a distinct entity?

Terrorism as a tactic directed at peoples only connected to a perceived wrong by warped minds in order to make a statement, was refined in our age to a science by non other than Arafat himself, which gave him great fame and stature, and imitators, among many.

Origins of one cause or another is the sole justification for terrorism, yet you say it has nothing to do with it. Amazing.

GreNME

30th October 2007, 09:06 AM

Many people claim the US is a terrorist nation, humiliating and killing peoples all over the world, particularly Muslims, for no reason. Pick your sides.

The UG government calls the Tamils terrorists. I know you aren't really trying to make apologetics for the group.

This discussion was about ISLAM driven terrorism, and yes I see them as "meaner" to me than the Tamils. Does that preclude discussing them as a distinct entity?

So you don't want to accept the fact that it isn't Islam that makes terrorists, but you make some snide comment about McVeigh as if there is no comparison in acts of terrorism between the current Islamic terrorist fronts and non-Islamic ones.

Terrorism as a tactic directed at peoples only connected to a perceived wrong by warped minds in order to make a statement, was refined in our age to a science by non other than Arafat himself, which gave him great fame and stature, and imitators, among many.

That is a very carefully selective interpretation.

Origins of one cause or another is the sole justification for terrorism, yet you say it has nothing to do with it. Amazing.

You really don't get it. You are the one making implications about a religion being the driving force behind terrorism, and when shown an example of a terrorist organization who is equally as active and not associated with the religion, you actually make apologies for them. Amazing the level of imposed ignorance you'd rather live with, judging by your arguments.

FireGarden

30th October 2007, 10:00 AM

You seem to always to come back to the self defense, persecution, refugee issue as if all Islamic terrorism is based on valid arguments for that (regardless of whether their methods are justifiable).

I'm not justifying al-Qaeda in any way.
Some Muslims break laws that are in the Quran. They may find ways of interpreting parts to gain justification or ease their conscience or whatever. But that is their interpretation. And, in my opinion, a tough interpretation to justify if your are merely reading what is written rather than looking for something you can use to justify what you want to do.

Your defense of Islam as a religion of peace falls on history alone

Depends what you mean by peace.
Islam allows for a just war. A complete pacifist wouldn't.

And my argument is based on a straight-forward reading of the text.

Your argument is based on Islam not having the magic to control the Human urge to engage in violence. And on the Human urge to rationalise and justify violent acts. How many murderers are there who DON'T justify their acts?

If you think "negotiating" with OBL is valid ...

You spoke of "applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers".

There were better ways of winning the hearts and minds of those "hordes" than waging wars for oil and "full spectrum dominance".

Muslims have been largely persecuted by Muslims in the history I see, including cynical exploitation of the Palestinians, and I see no references by you of the obvious persecution of other religions by Muslim societies. The persecution and expulsion of Jews from Muslim lands predates Israel by far, which is probably the primary reason for their opposition to peace for so long.

Christians and other minorities have not fared much better, even in the more liberal countries.

This isn't the subject we were discussing.
Islam had a varied empire for a long period of time. I wonder how aware you are of the opposite facts, like:

-- The Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by Christians. They were only allowed to return when the Muslims took control in 638.

-- There was a period of Moorish Spain which was called the Golden Age of the Jews -- by the Jews. Though, in my opinion, they were treated even better in Turkey after they were thrown out of Spain by the Catholics.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sephardim.html

How many varieties of Christian Church have survived in Muslim lands? Here's Unitarian Rev. Marlin Lavanhar quoting Will Durant:
http://www.allsoulschurch.org/sermons.asp?sermon=43&action=menu&value=136&pagecode=92

... the Christians in Islam enjoyed a religious toleration such as no Christian ruler would have dreamed of

...At Smyrna, for example, the Moslems had fifteen mosques, the Christians seven churches, the Jews seven synagogues. In Turkey and the Balkans, the Greek Orthodox Church was protected by Turkish authorities from any molestation in their worship.

Pepys thought that most of Hungary yielded to the Turks because it had more religious liberty under Ottoman rule than under the Catholic emperors. This was certainly true of the heterodox Christians. “The Calvinists of Hungary and Transylvania, and the Unitarians of the latter country,” reported Sir Thomas Arnold, “preferred to submit to the Turks rather than fall into the hands of the fanatical House of Hapsburg” (VII 519).

Have you demonstrated in front of the crazies' mosques?

Have you?
There are no crazies in my part of Britain.

The trustees of Finsbury Park Mosque spent some time trying to get rid of Abu Hamza. His heavies kept throwing them out of their own Mosque.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article865111.ece

MI5 thought he was a "harmless clown"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article730018.ece

But why do they do so if they are not more interested in their children knowing the truth? Social convention? What Hirshi calls passive Islam?

I'm not sure I understand.
If you mean "why weren't they more religious when I was younger?" then that's a tough one. I'm not sure even they know the answer.

Have you tried the same arguments with anyone not in your immediate family?

Yes.

Your family is the exception, not the rule, as far as the way Islam reaches out to touch others is concerned. You seem to not want to accept that.

I don't except it because it doesn't fit in with my experience.

Sorry, but I find too many links to start a discussion on the finer points of translation.

You can't give me the source of your quotes? Where did you copy them from? Google gives too many returns for me to know which.

What's the problem with giving your source?

GreNME

30th October 2007, 11:55 AM

Your defense of Islam as a religion of peace falls on history alone
Depends what you mean by peace.
Islam allows for a just war. A complete pacifist wouldn't.

And my argument is based on a straight-forward reading of the text.

I agree with you, and I also think that this is a serious disconnect that many people have when they scoff at the idea of Islam being a "religion of peace" in any regard. Islam is a religion of peace, but it is not a religion of pacifism, and that is where the disconnect begins. The Western world in general has a long history of connection to Christianity, which long, long, long ago was a religion of pacifism. The main figure for Christianity, Jesus, is considered to have committed the pentultimate act of pacifism with the objective to absolve his followers of their sin.

Elind

30th October 2007, 06:36 PM

You really don't get it. You are the one making implications about a religion being the driving force behind terrorism, and when shown an example of a terrorist organization who is equally as active and not associated with the religion, you actually make apologies for them. Amazing the level of imposed ignorance you'd rather live with, judging by your arguments.

Now you really are going stupid on me. Just like your inability to understand correlations in other matters, you can't accept a correlation between Islam and terrorism even though you read about it every day.

What does your example prove? Absolutely nothing except what we already know about human nature.

We are not discussing the tendency for humans to be animals, we are discussing the correlated proof that in this age (in another it was Christians and in another some other superstition) it is Muslims who take the prize.

Truly, I have not found as committed a politically correct apologist as you in a long time.

Elind

30th October 2007, 06:45 PM

What's the problem with giving your source?

Because I don't know anymore and I don't think it's worth the time to research. As I said, I'm more interested in what I read and hear on the news, or Youtube, or Memri or the Arab News and so on. You want to discuss theory that millions of Muslims don't have a clue about.

Try standing in front of a mosque "where you live" and shout that you are an apostate Muslim and that there is no Allah. Say you work with Hirshi. See how long you live.

Your naivety is amazing and I find it very hard to believe your claims to be an atheist as a result. What do you consider that definition to be?

GreNME

30th October 2007, 07:18 PM

Now you really are going stupid on me. Just like your inability to understand correlations in other matters, you can't accept a correlation between Islam and terrorism even though you read about it every day.

No, genius. I am saying I read about more than just terrorism by extremist Islamic groups. I can't fix you're inability to understand the world further out than your television.

What does your example prove? Absolutely nothing except what we already know about human nature.

We are not discussing the tendency for humans to be animals, we are discussing the correlated proof that in this age (in another it was Christians and in another some other superstition) it is Muslims who take the prize.

Who took the prize for most atrocities in the 20th century? Which first world nation today takes the prize for torture? Which first world country wins the prize for flouting international law? All of those three anwers are different, and none of them are Muslim.

Your poorly-veiled anti-Muslim rhetoric only works when you are directing the view at terrorist activity coming from the Middle East.

Truly, I have not found as committed a politically correct apologist as you in a long time.

Don't worry, I actually think you making excuses for the Tamil Tigers keeps you firmly in the top spot as an apologist.

Elind

30th October 2007, 08:03 PM

No, genius. I am saying I read about more than just terrorism by extremist Islamic groups. I can't fix you're inability to understand the world further out than your television.

I realize you can't fix what we are actually talking about, since you always change the subject.

Who took the prize for most atrocities in the 20th century? Which first world nation today takes the prize for torture? Which first world country wins the prize for flouting international law? All of those three anwers are different, and none of them are Muslim.

Yes. I know there are plenty like you out there who equate cutting off heads with allegations of torture by avowed enemies of ours, or definitions of torture that have no comparison, or gospels of international "law" that you think are written on golden tablets, but that is what you are.

Your poorly-veiled anti-Muslim rhetoric only works when you are directing the view at terrorist activity coming from the Middle East.

Islam is but one sorry superstition that a large number of people define themselves by. At this time the others (driven by gods) are relatively quiescent in terms of killing, but they remain in the wings, aside from those with simple territorial or financial agendas who will no doubts always be there too. My anti-muslim rhetoric is not poorly veiled; it is perfectly unambiguous. Aren't you smart enough to notice?

Don't worry, I actually think you making excuses for the Tamil Tigers keeps you firmly in the top spot as an apologist.

I made excuses? Going stupid on us again are you?

Elind

30th October 2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3103559#post3103559)
My new rule is that using the "lived in the Middle East" as a rhetorical tool pretty much ends the conversation. It's not a competition.

Texas: I didn't mean it to be. Sorry.Catching up here.

Texas, I wouldn't be so quick to apologize for "rules" made up for the moment by a debater. Seems to me he is saying no personal experience or understanding is allowed to be presented. That seems like a really dumb ass rule to me.

GreNME

30th October 2007, 08:54 PM

You really do whine when people point out how the world isn't as black and white as you seem to want it to be.

FireGarden

31st October 2007, 02:00 AM

Because I don't know anymore and I don't think it's worth the time to research.

So you didn't copy and paste it from the internet?

Your naivety is amazing and I find it very hard to believe your claims to be an atheist as a result. What do you consider that definition to be?

You're kidding.
And this from a guy that thinks understanding correlation is about dismissing data that doesn't fit into a theory.

Even you can see that the correlation disappears if you look at ALL the infomation:

We are not discussing the tendency for humans to be animals, we are discussing the correlated proof that in this age (in another it was Christians and in another some other superstition) it is Muslims who take the prize.

So you know what the world looks like when you widen your view.

And, btw,
My definiton of atheist is the obvious: "someone who doesn't believe in any God".

Your defintion seems to be "atheist = someone who hates religion".

Elind

31st October 2007, 07:13 AM

So you didn't copy and paste it from the internet?

Yes, from one of those many sites. It was a quick illustration, not an analysis. Since you are so interested I will try to find it again.

You're kidding.
And this from a guy that thinks understanding correlation is about dismissing data that doesn't fit into a theory.

Even you can see that the correlation disappears if you look at ALL the infomation:

Except that you don't include ALL the information in terms of what is actually happening around you, and you ignore many of my points or questions. If we continue we'll have to try to take them one at a time.

So you know what the world looks like when you widen your view.

From my perspective your view is limited to theory and philosophical musings. You say little of the atrocities committed daily in the name of Allah.

And, btw,
My definiton of atheist is the obvious: "someone who doesn't believe in any God".

Your defintion seems to be "atheist = someone who hates religion".

Those are your words, not mine. Religion, as we discuss it, is based on the premise of a god (or gods). You say you believe in no god but you defend the fantasy that you know is incorrect as if you do. I have no respect for religion as a superstition and those who think they cannot be moral without it are mentally lazy.

Darth Rotor

31st October 2007, 09:24 AM

Most people of all religions take the "word of God" literally and in the case of the Koran in particular, few are qualified to "translate" it, even in ancient Arabic.
I am skeptical of that statement, the stuff in bold. The variations in practice, and the variations in denomination within various religions argues against your assertion. Your broad brush might need a bit of paint thinner.
The truth is that the millions read it or are taught it with the meanings my quoted versions indicate, and that is reflected in simple facts on the ground, from Arab nations' school books teaching hatred of Jews and infidels, and suicide bombers the world over.
That's a more creditable observation.

As Huntster so nicely pointed out, some months before his suicide by mod, the doctrine and canon of the RCC is not a literalist Christian take on the Bible. That's a lot of people who don't take the Word of God literally, isn't it? Pentacostals, on the other hand, might be a different kettle of fish, and YEC's.

DR

FireGarden

31st October 2007, 10:42 AM

Yes, from one of those many sites. It was a quick illustration, not an analysis. Since you are so interested I will try to find it again.

I can find many sites that use your quotes, but I didn't find any that were Islamic. If there were fewer results, I would link to it myself -- like I did with the quote you took from Daniel Pipes' website. What would worry me is if the only source you have for Islam are sites which are anti-Islam. You should balance it out. If nothing else, reading an Islamic forum would show you that Muslims don't agree on everything.

Those are your words, not mine.

I take that as a correction.

Religion, as we discuss it, is based on the premise of a god (or gods). You say you believe in no god but you defend the fantasy that you know is incorrect as if you do.

I 'm not defending Islam. I've criticised it already. But I criticise what it says. It serves no purpose to attack what it doesn't say.

I think religion should be studied scientifically. Because I believe that science is the best way to understand any and every phenomenon. I liked this response to Dawkins: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

especially:
Engineering principles dictate that a religion designed to benefit the whole group will be different from one designed to benefit some individuals (presumably the leaders) at the expense of others within the same group, which in turn will be different from a cultural disease organism designed to benefit itself at the expense of both individuals and groups, which in turn will be different from a religion for which the term “design” is inappropriate. It would be odd indeed if such different conceptions of religion could not be distinguished on the basis of carefully gathered descriptive information.

Elind

31st October 2007, 01:57 PM

I am skeptical of that statement, the stuff in bold (Most people of all religions take the "word of God" literally. The variations in practice, and the variations in denomination within various religions argues against your assertion. Your broad brush might need a bit of paint thinner.

Taken at face value I agree, although my meaning was to say "those who believe it to be the actual word of god, will take it literally". In that sense I was referring to the inevitable complications that arise since even the oldest documents were written in dead (or very old) language, and most others are translations of translations. The Koran probably less so than the Bible(s), but still faces similar problems. When something is to be taken literally there is no room for interpretation.

Elind

31st October 2007, 02:30 PM

I can find many sites that use your quotes, but I didn't find any that were Islamic. If there were fewer results, I would link to it myself -- like I did with the quote you took from Daniel Pipes' website. What would worry me is if the only source you have for Islam are sites which are anti-Islam. You should balance it out. If nothing else, reading an Islamic forum would show you that Muslims don't agree on everything.

I can't find my original either, but I think it was as you say, not an "islamic" site. Are you suggesting that there are forged versions of the Koran being passed around? I appreciate that there is debate in some circles and I have learned that the penalty for apostates like you is not believed to be death by all, but only the majority of scholars, at least that is what a Wikipedia link says.

I have tried to explain, that I am not terribly interested in what scholars say about these matters, any more than I am interested in what Nostradamus fans think they can read. I would not be discussing this at all were it not for seeing the majority of Islamic terrorists and supporters or apologists making the kind of interpretations you reject. To me that proves that the Koran is a dangerous document prone to simple justification of death and destruction, and if course that is the basis of Islam.

I 'm not defending Islam. I've criticised it already. But I criticise what it says. It serves no purpose to attack what it doesn't say.

Fair enough, if we find a specific instance of such, but there are plenty of others where there probably can be no disagreement, as I have seen on reading from what you must mean "official" translations.

I think religion should be studied scientifically. Because I believe that science is the best way to understand any and every phenomenon. I liked this response to Dawkins: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

especially:

I read the first part of that although it seemed to me to be more words than necessary; almost trying to make something major from something little. What I remember from Dawkins' musings on evolution was his proposal for the evolution of ethics/morality/kindness and so on. While those traits have been co opted by religion, I see them as something valid in an evolution of "instinct", and that is all that one needs for the "group" benefit to exist.

Religion, or God, I find unconvincing as seen in an evolutionary sense for the simple reason that it is largely simply a God of the Gaps, historically speaking. Belief in a god is largely based on ignorance (and tradition of ignorance), nothing more, and not to be confused with awe or "spirituality" at the very thought of existence or beauty.

Elind

31st October 2007, 06:22 PM

You really do whine when people point out how the world isn't as black and white as you seem to want it to be.

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't mean to ignore you, but I thought you had already said this more than once; apparently it's a stock phrase when nothing comes to mind?

FireGarden

1st November 2007, 02:18 AM

Taken at face value I agree, although my meaning was to say "those who believe it to be the actual word of god, will take it literally".

Which, of course, raises the question of how Muslims will deal with verse [3:7] -- which states that some of the verses in the Quran are allegorical. "...a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical

So do Muslims take verse 3:7 literally? Some do. They say that the basis of the religion are the clear verses. And that any which are unclear cannot be interpreted by whim, they have to be consistent with the clear verses. They disagree as to the extent this can be done.

Of course, one of the problems is that of deciding what is clear and what is allegory.

Here's an example I just found through google:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Quran/2004/07/article11.shtml

Allah Almighty instructed Muslims that they should not behave like Christians, who left the clear and lucid teachings of their prophet and became involved in ambiguous words, thus distorted Jesus' whole message.

The right approach should have been to refer his words to the basic message of tawhid (monotheism), but they invented the Trinity by taking ambiguous words and through arbitrary interpretations, and thereby they changed the meanings of his clear message. They found that Jesus (peace be upon him) was born from a virgin. Instead of taking this as a sign of Allah's power, they called him "Son of God" or "Incarnation of God". Allah the Almighty reminded Muslims that they should not follow this style in their interpretation of the Qur'an.

Another viewpoint is given by Yusuf Ali in his commentaries. I don't know if these are online, other than the article I wrote: http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Meaning_of_Sura_(3:7)

It is very fascinating to take up the [allegorical parts], and exercise our ingenuity about its inner meaning. But it refers to such profound spiritual matters that human language is inadequate to it. And though people of wisdom may get some light from it, no one should be dogmatic as the final meaning is known to God alone.

Both of these examples believe they are reading the word of God, and both allow that some of those words are allegory.

I would not be discussing this at all were it not for seeing the majority of Islamic terrorists and supporters or apologists making the kind of interpretations you reject.

But what is happening is that people, rather than giving up their faith, find a way for their faith to allow them to do as they please. As I said before, all sorts of criminals find a justification for their actions. That doesn't mean their actions are justified -- even within the framework they claim to be using.

Elind

1st November 2007, 05:51 PM

Leaving our earlier spats behind, I do appreciate that you have presented viewpoints that theoretically "could" perhaps form a basis for a "reformation" of Islam. Unfortunately however I think your efforts to argue that are in vain, realistically speaking.

You say "But what is happening is that people, rather than giving up their faith, find a way for their faith to allow them to do as they please."....which is a double sided weapon, so to speak.

We speak of interpretations of the Koran (remembering the dangers in interpreting the actual words of a god). We see how even official translations differ considerably in the words chosen for English (although to me the meaning are the same in what I have seen). We see how Muslims worldwide have to import Arabic speaking Imams, just like the Saudis import housekeepers, to tell them what the real Koran says, and believe them. We see how many of these imported servants of Allah are largely ignorant peasants indoctrinated in one book only. We see how easy it is for them to convert people to the meanings that you reject, just by reading and not thinking.

Look, they say that 20% of the US population is functionally illiterate, and I have personal professional reason to believe that. I think most of the world we talk about has a higher percentage. You don't seem to appreciate how easy it is for a "holy" person to convert people in that category, nor appreciate how few of these are the philosophers you describe, nor that they owe allegiance to NO single Islamic authority.

Now, just to spoil the thought, I'd like to ask a different question....You said negotiate with Al Qaeda. You didn't say on what basis. What could you describe as a negotiable issue?

tsig

1st November 2007, 10:25 PM

I am making a literal reading of the text. Where have I assumed things you find hard to accept?

Yes. Especially the references to God. I'm an atheist.

Yes. To deprive him of his hordes of followers. I think that is better than giving him a recruiting drive, which is what Bush has done.

Which is why I suggest you talk to Muslims. My family is Muslim. What I relate to you IS how the Quran is interpreted by Muslims.

I am Arabic, actually. In Britain since I was two.
I don't read Arabic well. My parents speak to me in Arabic, and always have done. I understand them very well. But that's a regional dialect. It's not a million miles from Modern Standard Arabic, but different enough that I find it hard to understand Arabic news, which is normally in MSA -- an "international" Arabic.

As for my parents being lapsed...
Quite the reverse. Although always Muslims, they were not particularly religious when I was young. Hence, I am not religious -- you try teaching a 10 year old! I do not even know how to pray in an Islamic fashion. I've not been that interested. My parents pray five times a day -- or as close to that as they can manage.

When I was younger, I used to fast. It was fun. I didn't regard it as any more religious than many athiests regard Christmas. I stopped when my father asked me "If you really don't believe, then why do you fast?" I didn't want to create any doubt in his mind.

I most certainly do know how my parents interpret the Quran. I've had the same arguments about Islam with them that I encourage you to have with Muslims. I've addressed the violence, the ritual, the baseless traditions. All of it with them. And with uncles and aunts and family friends -- who I have visited in an Arabic country.

I'm not defending Islam. I've already told you I disagree with it. But I disagree with what it actually says -- not with a strawman version of it.

I'm trying to give you a more accurate idea of what most Muslims believe.

It's Arabic and written down in the script used by educated Arabs at the time. You and I are currently using Roman script, but we are writing in English.

You may mean that when the Quran was originally written down, they did not use the marks which indicate vowels and differentiate some of the letters. I'm not sure when they were added.

The result is that some words here and there are disputed. There are also other differences resulting from poor scribing -- I mentioned one in a post earlier: verse 3:7

But none of this changes what Muslims believe. They believe the Quran is unchanged -- even though differences can be found between various Qurans. I think verse 3:7 is the best example, because it has commentary which makes it clear that what is involved is not a translation error. I wrote the skepticwiki entry, btw: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Meaning_of_Sura_(3:7)

:D

It's not difficult to post a link, Elind. And if you know the name of the translator used, then please post that too.

Your parents are muslims .

Why haven't they killed you?

FireGarden

2nd November 2007, 07:53 AM

Leaving our earlier spats behind, I do appreciate that you have presented viewpoints that theoretically "could" perhaps form a basis for a "reformation" of Islam. Unfortunately however I think your efforts to argue that are in vain, realistically speaking.

The interpretations I give are not new.

You say "But what is happening is that people, rather than giving up their faith, find a way for their faith to allow them to do as they please."....which is a double sided weapon, so to speak.

Why would you expect anything else?
Quantum mechanics is misinterpreted by people who want to believe there is science backing up their theories of telepathy or whatever. If self-serving people can do that to QM, then why be surprised they do it to a religion? Or any other system of ideas.

Look, they say that 20% of the US population is functionally illiterate, and I have personal professional reason to believe that. I think most of the world we talk about has a higher percentage.

Plenty of opportunity for conmen.
The answer would seem to be better education.

Now, just to spoil the thought, I'd like to ask a different question....You said negotiate with Al Qaeda. You didn't say on what basis. What could you describe as a negotiable issue?

You included "hordes" in the list of people to negotiate with. Those hordes are getting bigger and bigger because of Bush's policy.

Bush and OBL are mutual enablers. Both make the policies of the other possible. Bush takes advantage of OBL to wage war for oil, and OBL takes advantage of Bush to demonise America.

Bush has even alienated Turkey:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1101/p06s02-wome.html

The topic of negotiation: that should be OIL

Elind

2nd November 2007, 01:40 PM

The interpretations I give are not new.

Nor do they appear to have had much effect on fundamentalism so far. Quite the opposite has occurred.

Why would you expect anything else?
Quantum mechanics is misinterpreted by people who want to believe there is science backing up their theories of telepathy or whatever. If self-serving people can do that to QM, then why be surprised they do it to a religion? Or any other system of ideas.

They seem to be doing it pretty regularly with Islam, which is why we are having this discussion.

Plenty of opportunity for conmen.
The answer would seem to be better education.
And how many generations from now will we see results?

You included "hordes" in the list of people to negotiate with. Those hordes are getting bigger and bigger because of Bush's policy.

He is an easy target, particularly from people with your perspective, but New York in 2000 had nothing rational to do with Bush, and all the other atrocities, not even in Europe, need QM to find a rational connection.

Bush and OBL are mutual enablers. Both make the policies of the other possible. Bush takes advantage of OBL to wage war for oil, and OBL takes advantage of Bush to demonise America.

That's actually rubbish.

Bush has even alienated Turkey:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1101/p06s02-wome.html

The topic of negotiation: that should be OIL

Never alienate anyone is your policy? What the hell does oil have to do with it, and even if you are in the conspiracy camp thinking the US is smuggling oil out of Iraq, what does that have to do with OBL? You said negotiate with Al Qaeda. I asked negotiate about what? You say oil!

You didn't answer the question at all.

FireGarden

3rd November 2007, 02:41 AM

He is an easy target, particularly from people with your perspective, but New York in 2000 had nothing rational to do with Bush, and all the other atrocities, not even in Europe, need QM to find a rational connection.
Do you really think that you can pick and choose where history begins?

The sanctions against Iraq where in place before 911.
How do you think the middle east took Albright's comments?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.

She didn't apologise for her comments until around 2003.

You say oil!

It's all about oil. That's why America messes around in the middle east. They're worried China is going to get all the deals and America will make no profit out of the oil.

How else do you explain the statement made recently in Britain that "We have values in common with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia"? Well, I suppose we both kiss America butt.

even if you are in the conspiracy camp thinking the US is smuggling oil out of Iraq,

They're not smuggling.
American corporations are making money where they didn't have opportunity before. Hence big business is happy with Bush.

Something done publicly can't be called a conspiracy.

Elind

3rd November 2007, 02:24 PM

It's all about oil. That's why America messes around in the middle east. They're worried China is going to get all the deals and America will make no profit out of the oil.

This is simplistic stupidity. I thought you had some intelligence.

If you wish to continue, answer the question to what you said.

On what issue do you propose to negotiate with Al Qaeda?

Simple.

FireGarden

3rd November 2007, 02:46 PM

This is simplistic stupidity. I thought you had some intelligence.

If you wish to continue, answer the question to what you said.

On what issue do you propose to negotiate with Al Qaeda?

Simple.

The "hordes" you seem determined to label under the single banner al-Qaeda are motivated by political concerns.

Heck,
Some of them even consider al-Qaeda to be traitors. One Iraqi accused al-Qaeda of collaborating with the Americans. And when you consider the chaos al-Qaeda has helped create in Iraq, you can imagine why he would think so.

http://www.aina.org/news/2007032293837.htm

Three months later, on October 12, 2006, Islamist websites posted a video by "Sheikh Osama Al-Iraqi," who appeared masked and was identified as "one of the jihad commanders in the Land of the Two Rivers." [9] Abu Osama Al-Iraqi called upon bin Laden to renounce Al-Qaeda because it targets and kills Sunni civilians and Sunni jihad fighters belonging to other factions. He also accused Al-Qaeda of cooperating with the "Crusaders" and with the Shi'ites.

As for topic of negotiation:
The issues that started the war -- America's presence and interference in the middle east. That will have to include oil.

Sorry if that seems simplistic.

Elind

3rd November 2007, 06:06 PM

As for topic of negotiation:
The issues that started the war -- America's presence and interference in the middle east. That will have to include oil.

Sorry if that seems simplistic.

Meaningless is what it is.

What is your basis of negotiation? That is a simple question.

You now sound like an Al Qaeda apologist like so many Muslims. There were issue well before "the war".

What do "you" want and what will "you" be capable of doing if you get it, and on who's behalf do "you" pretend to speak?

FireGarden

4th November 2007, 04:02 AM

Meaningless is what it is.

Meaningless? Because al-Qaeda only put Iraq into their recruitment videos for the hell of it. And the matter didn't influence any of those that were recruited. That's your intelligent assessment?

What is your basis of negotiation? That is a simple question.

And I've given you a simple answer: the very topics that are recruiting people to al-Qaeda.

You now sound like an Al Qaeda apologist like so many Muslims. There were issue well before "the war".

You sound like those idiots who believe "They hate us because we're free."

Elind

4th November 2007, 06:34 PM

Meaningless? Because al-Qaeda only put Iraq into their recruitment videos for the hell of it. And the matter didn't influence any of those that were recruited. That's your intelligent assessment?

And I've given you a simple answer: the very topics that are recruiting people to al-Qaeda.

You sound like those idiots who believe "They hate us because we're free."

Please just answer the question regarding the suggestion that you proposed.

You said negotiate with Al Qaeda.

I asked negotiate on what?

Do you know what negotiate means?

FireGarden

5th November 2007, 02:23 AM

Please just answer the question regarding the suggestion that you proposed.

You said negotiate with Al Qaeda.

I asked negotiate on what?

Do you know what negotiate means?

I've already answered and you called it simplisitic.
You don't believe that America's enemies have politics aims. Even when you're told their recruiting videos list political aims. Those are things that can be the basis of negotiation.

But the American leadership payed attention to Vietnam and learnt the lessons well. They learnt they can go on making money out of American tax payers by fighting a futile, pointless war for decades.

Elind

5th November 2007, 05:14 PM

I've already answered and you called it simplisitic.
You don't believe that America's enemies have politics aims. Even when you're told their recruiting videos list political aims. Those are things that can be the basis of negotiation.

You are still not answering the question; nor defining the "solution" that you proposed. Assuming that America's enemies have political aims, tell me what they are and what you think can be negotiated, or should be negotiable, please.

But the American leadership payed attention to Vietnam and learnt the lessons well. They learnt they can go on making money out of American tax payers by fighting a futile, pointless war for decades.

We can address this after you address the above.

FireGarden

6th November 2007, 12:38 AM

You are still not answering the question; nor defining the "solution" that you proposed. Assuming that America's enemies have political aims, tell me what they are and what you think can be negotiated, or should be negotiable, please.

Are you really so blind? I posted a reference to their recruiting video from the 90's. That tells you the nature of their political aims.

Through the 90's it was the sanctions on Iraq, and American troops in the Middle East. Since then it has become the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Solution: America becomes a nation among nations. Nobody voted for America to be the world policeman.

Elind

6th November 2007, 05:31 AM

OK. I'm blind. I've seen more of these "videos" than you, I suspect.

You have still, for the umpteenth time, avoided answering the question posed by your call for negotiations.

NEGOTIATE:1.to deal or bargain with another or others, as in the preparation of a treaty or contract

What is there to bargain about? Please try to be specific. That can't be so hard, can it?

FireGarden

6th November 2007, 07:44 AM

[/I]What is there to bargain about? Please try to be specific. That can't be so hard, can it?

Getting America out of the middle east. ie: the topic that has angered the people that actually live in the middle east and had to watch their neighbours suffer under sanctions while Albright et al said it was worth it. You know... those political aims you don't acknowledge. America's solution -- bombing instead of sanctions -- has only angered more people.

Please ask again.
I'm curious to find out how long it will be before I resort to copy and paste of my own answers.

Darth Rotor

6th November 2007, 10:38 AM

Solution: America becomes a nation among nations. Nobody voted for America to be the world policeman.
A goodly number of Libertarians, and White Nationalists, in America agree with your second sentence. As to the first, how much of the funding to the UN should the US cut, to become just another sheep in the herd? It typically supplies about 25%.

Should it supply 1/192d? ;)

"Getting America out of the middle east."

What does that mean? Your argument by sound byte isn't helping.

What does OBL and Al Qaeda have to bargain with? You suggested oil. Trouble is, OBL and Al Qaeda don't have a lot of oil to bargain with. (Part of why they used terror, unlike the King of Saudi Arabia who could and did lead OPEC's embargo in 1973, in a classic case of "bargaining with oil." ) That wasn't about "America out of the Middle East" that was about "America, don't support Israel."

Is that what you mean by "America out of the Middle East?" Do you actually mean "America, stop supporting Israel?" With such an open ended thought to work with, one is left wondering.

Consider the Emir of Qatar. For an Emir, he's quite the progressive. He seems to be a fan of America in the Middle East. Should I ignore him and listen to you?

DR

FireGarden

6th November 2007, 11:38 AM

As to the first, how much of the funding to the UN should the US cut, to become just another sheep in the herd? It typically supplies about 25%.

Should it supply 1/192d? ;)

Pay nothing, if you like.
If the world wants a UN then the world will pay.

What does OBL and Al Qaeda have to bargain with? You suggested oil. Trouble is, OBL and Al Qaeda don't have a lot of oil to bargain with. (Part of why they used terror,

Like the IRA didn't have oil. But they still had political aims. And the British government eventually realised that they had to negotiate.

America is afraid of giving control of oil to people who are anti-America. The problem is, Bush is loosing the support of people left, right and centre. Not just among Arabs -- who can see America's attempts to spread democracy while supporting dictators. But amongst other "allies" -- Turkey for instance:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1101/p06s02-wome.html

Do you actually mean "America, stop supporting Israel?" With such an open ended thought to work with, one is left wondering.

That is one of the political situations that aids recruitment. But, given the spike in recruitment lately, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be bigger issues.

Consider the Emir of Qatar. For an Emir, he's quite the progressive. He seems to be a fan of America in the Middle East. Should I ignore him and listen to you?

DR

His life is good under America. Especially since he deposed his father to become head of state. While his father was on holiday in Switzerland, according to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Khalifa
The model of democracy.

If all Arab states could profit from American friendship, there would be no problem. But there are masses of people who feel that America is not their friend. And their numbers grow with every bomb America drops.

Darth Rotor

6th November 2007, 12:57 PM

Pay nothing, if you like. If the world wants a UN then the world will pay.
Right. League of Nations, for fifty, Alex. :p
Like the IRA didn't have oil. But they still had political aims. And the British government eventually realised that they had to negotiate.
You compare the US/Al Qaida to UK/ IRA? Spandex doesn't look good on everyone.
America is afraid of giving control of oil to people who are anti-America.
Not sure how good your history is, but control isn't America's to give, or not. Indeed, the King of Saudi Arabia illustrated that point, as did his OPEC friends, rather forcefully in 1973. I don't think you understand the topic.
The problem is, Bush is loosing the support of people left, right and centre.
Losing? Loosing would imply "letting loose of" where losing connotes "once gained, lost." Which did you mean? Typo? :confused:
Not just among Arabs -- who can see America's attempts to spread democracy while supporting dictators.
You are advised to go and bitch to Woodrow Wilson. See if he cares about your argument by sound byte.
But amongst other "allies" -- Turkey for instance:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1101/p06s02-wome.html
Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally.
That is one of the political situations that aids recruitment. But, given the spike in recruitment lately, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be bigger issues.
Bigger than what? Keeping Turkey from going Islamist? I'd say no, keeping Turkey from going Islamist is far more important than Iraq, or Afghanistan, by an order of magnitude.
His life is good under America. Especially since he deposed his father to become head of state. While his father was on holiday in Switzerland, according to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Khalifa
Under America. Rhetoric noted. You might want to ask triangle man, he is apparently in Qatar now, but the current Emir's dad was a bit conservative, not a progressive, and the Emir Al Thani, present, had ideas of reform and becoming a progressive, more open society. So, dad was made an offer he could not refuse.
The model of democracy.
Nice attempt at a bait and switch. I said progressive, for the region, which has a relative weighting. Words have meanings. You might want to learn them.
If all Arab states could profit from American friendship, there would be no problem. But there are masses of people who feel that America is not their friend. And their numbers grow with every bomb America drops.
The people and the states are at a disconnect. Not a problem solely facing Arab states. Rhetorical throwaway in your closing line noted.

DR

Elind

6th November 2007, 01:17 PM

Getting America out of the middle east. ie: the topic that has angered the people that actually live in the middle east and had to watch their neighbours suffer under sanctions while Albright et al said it was worth it. You know... those political aims you don't acknowledge. America's solution -- bombing instead of sanctions -- has only angered more people.

Please ask again.
I'm curious to find out how long it will be before I resort to copy and paste of my own answers.

Your answers have been too simplistic to respond to, but I now see that you think Al Qaeda speaks for the "people of the Middle East", not their governments, and that you ascribe Al Qaeda's mayhem to Iraq and the removal of their friends the Taliban.

You still have not actually described what is to be "negotiated", but one has to assume that what you mean is that the saviours of the peoples of the Middle East are Al Qaeda and that the negotiation would be that Al Qaeda will stop murdering (more Muslims than infidels so far) in return for recognition of themselves as the sole representatives of peoples like you.

Your position is contemptible and moronic. You are the "why" of Al Qaeda.

WildCat

6th November 2007, 01:51 PM

Losing? Loosing would imply "letting loose of" where losing connotes "once gained, lost." Which did you mean? Typo? :confused:
I think he meant to say "righty tighty, lefty loosey".

FireGarden

7th November 2007, 01:29 AM

You compare the US/Al Qaida to UK/ IRA?

The point is in answer to your claim that America has nothing to gain from negotiation. After all, the oil is already in the hands of pro-American Arabs.

Not sure how good your history is, but control isn't America's to give, or not. Indeed, the King of Saudi Arabia illustrated that point, as did his OPEC friends, rather forcefully in 1973. I don't think you understand the topic.

And America doesn't worry that the king of Saudi might be replaced by someone chosen by Saudis. Take off the spandex. (Whatever that means)

Losing? Loosing would imply "letting loose of" where losing connotes "once gained, lost." Which did you mean? Typo? :confused:

I'll take your word for it.

Bigger than what? Keeping Turkey from going Islamist? I'd say no, keeping Turkey from going Islamist is far more important than Iraq, or Afghanistan, by an order of magnitude.

You lost the context when your quote was cut out by the reply editor. Read my post again.

FireGarden

7th November 2007, 01:36 AM

Your answers have been too simplistic to respond to, but I now see that you think Al Qaeda speaks for the "people of the Middle East", not their governments, and that you ascribe Al Qaeda's mayhem to Iraq and the removal of their friends the Taliban.

The people of the middle east are not represented by their governments. Especially Saudis. They look elsewhere for representation. They don't all look to al-Qaeda.

When Iraqis looked to al-Qaeda for help, they were disappointed. They turned on al-Qaeda and started fighting them -- long before the surge. Some even accused al-Qaeda of helping the "crusaders". Attacks against civilians in Iraq certainly haven't helped the Iraqis. And few Iraqis wanted a civil war with their neighbours.

Al-Qaeda does not represent the middle east. There are many groups that American can negotiate with. It has done so with insurgents in Iraq. But even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with.

You still have not actually described what is to be "negotiated", ....

Tell me what the British government negotiated with the IRA. Or do you think that America's current enemies (of which al-Qaeda is only one, and probably the least popular one) have no political aims?

Pardalis

7th November 2007, 05:22 AM

I still don't see a response to who does Al Qaeda represent, what are their claims and what should be bargained with them.

:confused:

Elind

7th November 2007, 06:30 AM

Don't hold your breath. This guy is practicing to do a tape for OBL one day.

Pardalis

7th November 2007, 06:33 AM

Don't hold your breath. This guy is practicing to do a tape for OBL one day.

I wouldn't go that far.

GreNME

7th November 2007, 07:13 AM

I still don't see a response to who does Al Qaeda represent, what are their claims and what should be bargained with them.

:confused:

Who do they claim to represent, who states they feel represented by them, or who do they have diplomatic authority of reperesentation for? Could you clarify which you're asking?

Pardalis

7th November 2007, 07:37 AM

Who do they claim to represent, who states they feel represented by them, or who do they have diplomatic authority of reperesentation for? Could you clarify which you're asking?
Don't ask me, ask FireGarden. He/she implies that they have a "political aim", and suggests the US should "negociate" with them.

I have no idea what he/she means by that.

Darth Rotor

7th November 2007, 03:57 PM

The point is in answer to your claim that America has nothing to gain from negotiation.
Since I didn't make that claim, you are invited to borrow a pound, and rent a clue.

Did you confuse me with some other poster, or the voices in your head?

Ciao

DR

Elind

7th November 2007, 04:28 PM

I wouldn't go that far.

One giant step for mankind, one small step for the inveterate apologist.

Elind

7th November 2007, 04:32 PM

Who do they claim to represent, who states they feel represented by them, or who do they have diplomatic authority of reperesentation for? Could you clarify which you're asking?

Sounds like a question that calls for an answer from you, not what you don't understand of something obvious from another.

FireGarden

8th November 2007, 12:48 AM

I still don't see a response to who does Al Qaeda represent, what are their claims and what should be bargained with them.

:confused:

They represent very few people.
They claim America is being imperialistic rather than defending itself. The topic negotiated should be America's withdrawal. America simply doesn't want another oil embargo.

Al-Qaeda is not America's only enemy. Especially in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have been fighting al-Qaeda since long before the surge.

America has negotiated with other militant groups in the area. Famously working with Sunni insurgents as a sign that the surge was working.

Pardalis

8th November 2007, 02:12 PM

They represent very few people.
They claim America is being imperialistic rather than defending itself. The topic negotiated should be America's withdrawal. America simply doesn't want another oil embargo.

Why should America deal with them if they represent very few people? Very few radical lunatic people if I may add.

Do you think Al Qaeda's "claims" have any merit, and/or are reasonable and feasible??

FireGarden

9th November 2007, 01:12 AM

Why should America deal with them if they represent very few people? Very few radical lunatic people if I may add.

This began when I said, "And I've been on this board many times arguing that people with a cause to fight should use diplomacy instead."

To which Elind replied, "Do you think there is any point at all in applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers?" Because Elind sees all enemies of America as being al-Qaeda or modelled on al-Qaeda.

I answered "yes" to the question.
America would get more out of negotiations with other groups. It would stop those "hordes" from joing OBL in the first place. But even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with.

Do you think Al Qaeda's "claims" have any merit, and/or are reasonable and feasible??

I do think that America is being imperialistic. America's plans for the region were telegraphed well in advance of 9/11. Even before Bush came to power.

The American government does not want democracy in the middle east, because that might limit America's power in the world.

Pardalis

9th November 2007, 08:28 AM

This began when I said, "And I've been on this board many times arguing that people with a cause to fight should use diplomacy instead."

To which Elind replied, "Do you think there is any point at all in applying diplomacy to the likes of OBL, and his hordes of followers?" Because Elind sees all enemies of America as being al-Qaeda or modelled on al-Qaeda.

I answered "yes" to the question.
America would get more out of negotiations with other groups. It would stop those "hordes" from joing OBL in the first place. But even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with.

You're evading the question again.

I do think that America is being imperialistic. America's plans for the region were telegraphed well in advance of 9/11. Even before Bush came to power.

The American government does not want democracy in the middle east, because that might limit America's power in the world.

You're evading the question again.

FireGarden

9th November 2007, 11:12 AM

I'm not dodging anything. That was my answer to your questions. I say that even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with. That they represent few people means negotiating on a multi-lateral level.

People will go on forming and joining militant groups until America negotiates. America cannot get a pro-American middle east through warfare. We've seen this all in Vietnam. The war goes on until America cannot go on. And what will America leave behind when it eventually has to leave?

And, yes, I agree that America is being imperialistic. Can't get clearer than that.

Pardalis

9th November 2007, 05:37 PM

The questions, again.

Why should America deal with them if they represent very few people? Very few radical lunatic people if I may add.

Do you think Al Qaeda's "claims" have any merit, and/or are reasonable and feasible??

FireGarden

10th November 2007, 08:21 AM

The questions, again.

I've no problem with this.

Why should America deal with them if they represent very few people?

America would get more out of negotiations with other groups. It would stop those "hordes" from joing OBL in the first place. But even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with. That they represent few people means negotiating on a multi-lateral level.

Or are you suggesting that al-Qaeda is so small as to not be worthy of attention?

And, yes, I agree that America is being imperialistic.

Ziggurat

10th November 2007, 10:04 AM

But even al-Qaeda can be negotiated with.

There is no reason to believe this is the case. Their goals and our goals are fundamentally incompatible. What, exactly, can we offer them that they would be satisfied with? Are we to haggle about the manner of our own deaths? Honestly, what are you prepared to offer them?

FireGarden

10th November 2007, 10:31 AM

Honestly, what are you prepared to offer them?

America out of the middle east.

Ziggurat

10th November 2007, 10:40 AM

America out of the middle east.

And why on earth would they stop committing acts of terrorism? Bin Laden himself said that people follow the strong horse. He considered Al Qaeda the strong horse, and the US the weak horse, because a few casualties would get us to withdraw our military power from places like Somalia. If we pack up and leave the middle east because Al Qaeda wants us to, who is the strong horse? Al Qaeda. You really think that recruiting for Al Qaeda will decrease in the wake of that kind of victory? Of course it won't. You think they'll stop committing acts of terrorism because we leave? Of course they won't. They'll ramp it up, because our leaving the middle east is only the first step in their stated plans. And without the US military in the region, they'll be able to drive oil prices into the stratosphere by attacking shipping lanes. And you know who that's going to REALLY screw over? Africa. They do not have the economic power to absorb increased prices. Likely results will be widespread civil war and genocide. I'm assuming that's a result you're interested in avoiding.

FireGarden

10th November 2007, 11:18 AM

And why on earth would they stop committing acts of terrorism? [...] And without the US military in the region, they'll be able to drive oil prices into the stratosphere by attacking shipping lanes. And you know who that's going to REALLY screw over? Africa. They do not have the economic power to absorb increased prices. Likely results will be widespread civil war and genocide.

A theory less believable than the Communist Domino theory.
People will turn to building their lives once they believe they have a chance of doing so with success.

Currently, Bush is recruiting enemies. We've seen the outcome in Vietnam. And Cambodia. Things will get worse until America stops pouring fuel on the fire.

Pardalis

10th November 2007, 11:55 AM

So FireGarden, basically you agree with Al Qaeda and want America to obey them.

That's called treason.

ETA:

America out of the middle east.

That's not negotiating, that's giving them what they want.

and about your question about whether or not AQ is not worthy of attention?

No, they're scum. They are the enemy, they are cold blooded fanatical murderers. You have chosen their side. Welcome to the other end of the battle field.

Ziggurat

10th November 2007, 01:07 PM

A theory less believable than the Communist Domino theory.

Said the person who thinks that giving terrorists what they want will make them stop. Once you give the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

People will turn to building their lives once they believe they have a chance of doing so with success.

Except they won't think that they have a chance of doing that, because the governments of the region are so screwed up and will remain just as screwed up after we leave. Overthrowing those governments is step 2 in Al Qaeda's long-term strategy, in case you forgot.

We've seen the outcome in Vietnam. And Cambodia.

Indeed we have: our enemies are emboldened, not pacified, when we retreat.

my_wan

10th November 2007, 05:57 PM

This is a very opinionated topic covering a wide range of beliefs, politics, and incongruent definitions of the situation. I will give my opinion anyway with the understanding that I might not choose to engage in arguing about it.

The OP question appears to be how many people would argue that there is no direct connection between Islam and terrorism. Many of you don't need a synopsis of Christian and Islamic mythologies but I must provide one to answer such a question. I can't speak for the Catholic perspective. My attempts at a Catholic insight consisted of; So you don't believe in evolution? "No." Do you believe in God? "No." So your not part of any kind of religion? "Yeah, Catholic." It doesn't get any better from there so outside of historical context and certain traditions my experience with Catholics is limited.

The OP depends on what you mean by direct connection. It's like asking if there is a direct connection between Christian mythology and our support of Israel. I wonder how many are unfamiliar enough with Christian mythology to not know that, or how our failure to support the Jews is directly tied to the Christian prophetic beliefs about the end days. The irony is that under Christianity the Jewish disbelief in Jesus is a mortal sin yet in prophetic belief they are to be defended as a chosen people. By chosen in the Israelites case meant to carry the word meaning the Torah. Other tribes had different prophesies but lacks consistent present day mythology or relevance here.

Now for the convolution of supersessionism. Under Jewish doctrine when when they rebelled their punishment was to be spread among the nations without a homeland and martyred. This was to last an unspecified amount of time but prophesy was that due to adherence to the Torah their homeland would one day be returned to them. This coincided with the Muslims taking control of the lands. Under Muslim mythology the rebelling of the Jews and transferal of control represented a transferal of the chosen status. This entails that Islam now carries the word of God.

Islam maintained its' mythology till 1942 when the Christian and Jewish prophesy actually occurred and the Jews took control of the homeland. To the Muslims this was not just a defeat but an abomination before God. As this was a Godless abomination the Jews and anyone who supported them was an abomination. Extremism grew and evolved from this.

Now to the present day. When likes of OBL does a press release he talks to all Muslims as if the very definition of Muslim logically leads to his brand of Islam. Such is the state of his mythology that any Muslims that doesn't act on it has to be for lack of faith or fear but not because they actually believe differently (in his mind). The one nearly universal Islamic mythology is that the Jewish occupation is an abomination. For this there exist a tacit tolerance for extremism in the same way that Christians will tacitly tolerate actions by the Jews that would otherwise draw wide criticism. The act of even questioning the motives of the Jews can draw criticism. Aside from this tacit tolerance Muslim attitudes about western nations and violence in general can vary widely along a spectrum. Tolerance is more the rule than extremism. We can only call one end of the spectrum truly extremist. Many extremist will be shockingly polite and caring before cutting your throat. A second issue with tolerance is the Islamic concept of fate. In Islamic cultures it is not uncommon see a baby playing with a knife and nobody reacts. If the baby is harmed it is after all fate, the will of Allah.

Now when we as another culture with differing beliefs, mythologies, and definitions of the situation recognize the uniformity of this tolerance it becomes very easy to say that Islam itself is the enemy. In a sense that is neither entirely right or wrong. In our culture beliefs are sacrosanct. We can only act against the actions of others and I certainly want to keep it that way. Going after actual terrorist and those that supply material support is as far as we can rightfully go.

Middle East politics is equally sad, shocking, and counterintuitive but that is another issue.

GreNME

10th November 2007, 08:04 PM

Now for the convolution of supersessionism. Under Jewish doctrine when when they rebelled their punishment was to be spread among the nations without a homeland and martyred. This was to last an unspecified amount of time but prophesy was that due to adherence to the Torah their homeland would one day be returned to them. This coincided with the Muslims taking control of the lands. Under Muslim mythology the rebelling of the Jews and transferal of control represented a transferal of the chosen status. This entails that Islam now carries the word of God.

Islam maintained its' mythology till 1942 when the Christian and Jewish prophesy actually occurred and the Jews took control of the homeland. To the Muslims this was not just a defeat but an abomination before God. As this was a Godless abomination the Jews and anyone who supported them was an abomination. Extremism grew and evolved from this.

You don't much care for history, do you?

FireGarden

11th November 2007, 02:25 AM

Said the person who thinks that giving terrorists what they want will make them stop. Once you give the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

So terrorism is a way of life to them, rather than a means to an end? What twaddle.

Except they won't think that they have a chance of doing that, because the governments of the region are so screwed up and will remain just as screwed up after we leave.

[We've seen the outcome in Vietnam. And Cambodia.]
Indeed we have: our enemies are emboldened, not pacified, when we retreat.

No. What we've seen is Vietnam grow as a nation and build diplomatic relations with the US because they don't have an American gun to their heads.

Supports my point.

my_wan

11th November 2007, 05:34 AM

You don't much care for history, do you?
Explain?

If you are making implications about the fact that I did not get into details of how everything happened historically then of course not. In the modern mythogical implications such details are not the point however important they might be in reality.

Oh wait. Bogus date. Ok you got me :boggled:

Ziggurat

11th November 2007, 08:22 AM

So terrorism is a way of life to them, rather than a means to an end? What twaddle.

And what a complete strawman. The end they have in mind in world domination, which I'm not prepared to negotiate for and which they will not give up on. And yes, terrorism is a tactic, and when a tactic succeeds, it will get used more, not less. How can you not understand such basics?

No. What we've seen is Vietnam grow as a nation and build diplomatic relations with the US because they don't have an American gun to their heads.

Their goals were always local, and so the horror that they caused in the wake of our retreat was also local. Yes, they got nicer after they killed all their enemies or pacified them with reeducation camps - how comforting. Al Qaeda's goals, however, are explicitly global. What comfort will you find in their victory?

FireGarden

11th November 2007, 10:17 AM

Their goals were always local, and so the horror that they caused in the wake of our retreat was also local.

The Vietnamese had local concerns. Yes, I agree. Just like America's modern enemies.

But what did America say about the Vietnam War? Did America say it was all about fighting people with local concerns? "We must fight those pesky Vietnamese that are dying for their nation!"

What was supposed to fall like a series of dominos if America blinked in the Cold War?

I think you'll probably end up seeing the current conflict as a fight against people with local concerns. Such a pity that it will take hindsight rather than common sense.

Ziggurat

11th November 2007, 10:32 AM

The Vietnamese had local concerns. Yes, I agree. Just like America's modern enemies.

No, rather UNLIKE jihadis. Are you paying any attention? They are constantly saying that they have global ambitions. Why do you want to negotiate with them, and yet ignore what they say they want?

Elind

11th November 2007, 03:51 PM

America out of the middle east.

I thought it was best to let others ask the questions I couldn't get rational answers to, but the above comment comes closer than previous sidesteps, and also illustrates the point in the OP in terms of the logic that drives Islamists.

Why don't we all just understand how it's all the fault of the USA? And if America would just pull back and become isolationist in response to fanaticism, then everyone will love everyone else. It's so simple and obvious:rolleyes:

Pardalis

11th November 2007, 07:11 PM

Not to mention that "America out of the middle East", in practical terms doesn't really mean anything.

Elind

11th November 2007, 07:26 PM

Stepping back a few pages here, I came across this concise and well researched essay on the principles that our current apologist tries to promote.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php

gumboot

11th November 2007, 11:58 PM

The fundamental error most westerners make (often for reasons of Political Correctness) is that the problem is not Terrorism. The problem is Radical Islam. Terrorism is merely one of many tools in the Radical Islamic toolbox.

No doubt there are also non-Radical Muslims committing acts of "terrorism", whom would cease their militaristic activities if the USA (or whoever) withdrew from the Middle East (or wherever).

However, the vast majority of militant Islamic activity is a direct result of modern Radical Islamic ideology, which originates in Egypt in the 1920's in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. Numerous terrorist groups - including Al Qaeda - have branched off from the Muslim Brotherhood. Their activities are motivated not by the actions of the west, but by the ideology of the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's ideology pre-dates US involvement in the Middle East, and pre-dates the creation of Israel (the two most common-cited causes of their activities by westerners). Their ideology is simple and direct, and has been publicly promoted for almost a century. They wish to bring the entire world under the rule of their version of Islam.

Anyone who thinks people with this ambition can be stopped through negotiation is simply dreaming. This is a conflict that will end only with the extermination of one side or the other. There is no common ground.

-Gumboot

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 12:53 AM

I thought it was best to let others ask the questions I couldn't get rational answers to, but the above comment comes closer than previous sidesteps, and also illustrates the point in the OP in terms of the logic that drives Islamists.

Shows your ability to rewrite history. Even resent history. Post 174 wasn't the first time I mentioned America's presence as a negotiating topic. So how 174 is clearer to you, I can't imagine.

if America would just pull back and become isolationist in response to fanaticism

The fanaticism is a response to America.

And why am I not surprised to see JihadWatch among your sources of infomation on Islam?

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 01:15 AM

However, the vast majority of militant Islamic activity is a direct result of modern Radical Islamic ideology, which originates in Egypt in the 1920's in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. Numerous terrorist groups - including Al Qaeda - have branched off from the Muslim Brotherhood. Their activities are motivated not by the actions of the west, but by the ideology of the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's ideology pre-dates US involvement in the Middle East, and pre-dates the creation of Israel (the two most common-cited causes of their activities by westerners). Their ideology is simple and direct, and has been publicly promoted for almost a century. They wish to bring the entire world under the rule of their version of Islam.

Why is it that Robert S. Leiken, Director of the Immigration and National Security Programs at the Nixon Center, and Steven Brooke, a Research Associate at the Nixon Center, disagree with you? They mention very clearly the Brotherhood's foundation:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86208/robert-s-leiken-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood.html

Since its founding in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to fuse religious revival with anti-imperialism -- resistance to foreign domination through the exaltation of Islam.

Oh look!
Anti-Imperialism.

America is today's empire.

That article also talks about the Brotherhood being condemned by "jihadis" for being pro-democracy.

Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri sneers at them for "lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections ... instead of into the lines of jihad."

The terrorist groups that stem from the Brotherhood left the brotherhood precisely because they grow to disagree with being pro-democracy. What could possibly be radicalising these people? Where is the engine that drives people to leave a group with democratic aims and form groups with non-democratic aims?

Why not pick the most pro-democracy factions and give them the reward of recognition instead of supporting the dictators that arrest and imprison opposition to their governments?

Andúril

12th November 2007, 01:50 AM

Now, if you would step back a bit and take note of how you pretend to conduct a debate, while throwing accusations that others don't, you might be surprised at what you see.

There are no radical Christian terrorist threats at this time that have any comparable scale to the Islamic one. You don't appear to be very well informed about any of this. Had you watched the program in the OP you would have learned something. Had you read the news worldwide and compared the statistics with radical Christian atrocities you would have learned something. Had you read any of the Arab news commentaries, or watched any Memri clips from Hamas, or any of the videos of Muslim Imams calling for Jihad in countless mosques in the West you would have learned something.

Had you ever tried to read the Koran you would have learned that perhaps half of it is concerned with condemnation, death, destruction and more of the infidels (that's any non Muslim), but with specific relish on how to deal with the Jews. These are the parts that are never quoted in English by Muslims.

Had you ever bothered to learn that the Koran is the LITERAL word of Allah you would understand that there is a significant difference in how most Christians and Muslims read their holy books.

Had you bothered to read all the multitude of surveys conducted all over the world on the attitude of Muslims towards what we call terrorism you would have been dismayed at the percentages who tacitly or outright support it (always with justification however).

You are not a Muslim are you? If so, sorry to offend, but them's the facts.
Yep.

Some people are in either completely blinded by their ignorance and overkilling tolerance ("yeah, but christians also killed people 1000 years ago so who are we to condemn blah blah blah Hitler blah blah blah islam is a religion of peace blah blah blah") or so stunned by the pure evil included in Islam that they want to deny its very existence rather than facing and processing it, which would force them to abandon their illusions. Even when bombs start to explode around them and jihadists scream death to infidels they cover their ears and close their eyes and blame the white man for everything without understanding that islamic terrorism directly follows the teachings of the Koran.

Ziggurat

12th November 2007, 07:18 AM

Oh look!
Anti-Imperialism.

The Muslim Brootherhood anti-imperialist? Don't make me laugh. The only objection to imperialism they have is if it's not Islamic imperialism. They're all for that. But by playing the "anti-imperialism" card, they successfully fool gullible western leftists (such as yourself) into thinking that they share some common ideological ground with you. And thus, you become their useful idiot. But they have no interest in doing away with empire: they just want to replace western empires with a caliphate.

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 07:46 AM

Oh look!
Anti-Imperialism.

America is today's empire.

That article also talks about the Brotherhood being condemned by "jihadis" for being pro-democracy.

The terrorist groups that stem from the Brotherhood left the brotherhood precisely because they grow to disagree with being pro-democracy. What could possibly be radicalising these people? Where is the engine that drives people to leave a group with democratic aims and form groups with non-democratic aims?

Why not pick the most pro-democracy factions and give them the reward of recognition instead of supporting the dictators that arrest and imprison opposition to their governments?

Oh looky here! Look who we got here in the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

Al Qaeda's "claims":
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Are you saying these are legitimate claims? America should negociate with that???

Stop apologizing for these monsters, it's sickening.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 08:21 AM

The Muslim Brootherhood anti-imperialist? Don't make me laugh. The only objection to imperialism they have is if it's not Islamic imperialism. They're all for that. But by playing the "anti-imperialism" card, they successfully fool gullible western leftists (such as yourself) into thinking that they share some common ideological ground with you. And thus, you become their useful idiot. But they have no interest in doing away with empire: they just want to replace western empires with a caliphate.

So on the one hand I'm asked: "Why do you want to negotiate with them, and yet ignore what they say they want?"

And then on the other, when they say something that doesn't fit into a set world view we must ignore what they are saying.

I hadn't thought of the Nixon Centre as leftist.
I guess I have to go to LGF and JihadWatch to get all my data in future.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 08:33 AM

Oh looky here! Look who we got here in the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

Very clever.
Zawahiri was the guy I quoted from the other article. Perhaps you needed more context:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86208/robert-s-leiken-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood.html

The Muslim Brotherhood is the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization. It is also the most controversial, condemned by both conventional opinion in the West and radical opinion in the Middle East. American commentators have called the Muslim Brothers "radical Islamists" and "a vital component of the enemy's assault force ... deeply hostile to the United States." Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri sneers at them for "lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections ... instead of into the lines of jihad."

Zawahari sneers at the Muslim Brotherhood. I guess he hangs on their every word, then.

And while we're at it...
Who are the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq? Perhaps you should look up the Iraqi Islamic Party, founded by the Brotherhood in 1960 and currently part of Maliki's government.

Al Qaeda's "claims":
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Did you even read it?
I got up to the second paragraph and found this:

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations.

So I suppose, using Ziggurat's method, I should ignore this and imagine al-Qaeda is unconcerned with America's precense in the middle-east. It's world domination. All world domination.

Stop apologizing for these monsters, it's sickening.

Stop believing in monsters. It's childish.

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 08:35 AM

I got up to the second paragraph and found this:

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations.
So I suppose, using Ziggurat's method, I should ignore this and imagine al-Qaeda is unconcerned with America's precense in the middle-east. It's world domination. All world domination.

Stop believing in monsters. It's childish.

So you agree with them? You think there's an American-Zionist crusade to take over the middle East?

And you say I believe in nonsense?

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 08:43 AM

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

How do you negociate with that?

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 08:53 AM

Oh, and about the Muslim Brotherhood/ Al-Zawahiri split, they still agree on the basics, they disagree on the means to achieve their goals.

Their basic claims are the same.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 08:58 AM

So you agree with them? You think there's an American-Zionist crusade to take over the middle East?

And you say I believe in nonsense?

I said those are the issues upon which they are fighting, and therefore the issues upon which negotiations should occur. Even with al-Qaeda. Not primarily.

And you act as if al-Qaeda don't believe what your own source says they believe. There must be some nonsense going on in your head.

I agree only that America is imperialistic.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 09:00 AM

How do you negociate with that?

Remove the motive.
End the imperialism.

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 09:06 AM

Remove the motive.
End the imperialism.

Again, as Gumboot stated, the motive existed before your so-called American imperialism.

You're still evading the question:

Do you agree with AlQaeda's claim that there's an American-Zionist crusade to take over the middle east?

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 09:10 AM

I said those are the issues upon which they are fighting, and therefore the issues upon which negotiations should occur. Even with al-Qaeda. Not primarily.

Can you be more evasive?

And you act as if al-Qaeda don't believe what your own source says they believe. There must be some nonsense going on in your head.

No, I do think AQ believes in what they are saying, but what they are saying is nonsense.

How do you negociate with lunatic fundamentalists?

I agree only that America is imperialistic.

do you think AQ's and the Muslim Brothehood claims aren't imperialistic?

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 09:16 AM

Again, as Gumboot stated, the motive existed before your so-called American imperialism.

Gumboot refered to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The article by the guys from the Nixon Centre says "Since its founding in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to fuse religious revival with anti-imperialism -- resistance to foreign domination through the exaltation of Islam."

For now, I'll go with them instead of Gumboot.
The attitude of being against imperialism is, no doubt, older than the Brotherhood. And the nature of the imperialism has changed since the Brotherhood was founded.

So what is your point?

You're still evading the question:

Do you agree with AlQaeda's claim that there's an American-Zionist crusade to take over the middle east?

I've answered it:
I agree only that America is imperialistic.

Or are you going to pretend you don't understand how my answer is related to your question? That's always entertaining.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 09:23 AM

Can you be more evasive?

Easily.

No, I do think AQ believes in what they are saying, but what they are saying is nonsense.

So convince them that America will let the middle-east rule itself.

do you think AQ's and the Muslim Brothehood claims aren't imperialistic?

Do you define imperialistic as trying to stand for elections in Egypt against an American backed dictator. :rolleyes:

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 09:26 AM

Gumboot refered to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The article by the guys from the Nixon Centre says "Since its founding in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to fuse religious revival with anti-imperialism -- resistance to foreign domination through the exaltation of Islam."

For now, I'll go with them instead of Gumboot.

You want the exaltation of Islam? Good to know.

I've answered it:
I agree only that America is imperialistic.

Read the question again.

Or are you going to pretend you don't understand how my answer is related to your question? That's always entertaining.

Keep evading, you're doing well.

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 09:28 AM

So convince them that America will let the middle-east rule itself.

To let the Middle East be ruled by AQ and fundamentalists, you mean.

Do you define imperialistic as trying to stand for elections in Egypt against an American backed dictator. :rolleyes:

No, I define imprialism as trying to establish an Islamic rule all over the Middle East and beyond.

FireGarden

12th November 2007, 10:08 AM

You want the exaltation of Islam? Good to know.

You believe that on that grounds that I quoted what the Nixon Centre says about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Wow.

Ziggurat

12th November 2007, 10:21 AM

So on the one hand I'm asked: "Why do you want to negotiate with them, and yet ignore what they say they want?"

And then on the other, when they say something that doesn't fit into a set world view we must ignore what they are saying.

There is a difference between their goals and their grievances. Their ability to manufacture grievances is endless (bin Laden is still upset about Muslim expulsion from Spain, and fatal riots half a world away can be sparked by cartoons). It is not that I do not believe them, but that the specifics of their grievances do not matter, because they can and will find grievances for as long as their goals are not met. And I am not willing to let them achieve their goals, ever. Bin Laden, for example, is still upset at loosing Al Andalus to the infidels - do you suggest we negotiate for Spain's surrender? Or will just a withdrawl of Spaniards from Spain suffice? When you can come to terms with the fact that Al Qaeda's goals are in fact global, then maybe you'll be able to say something worthwhile. But "give the terrorists what they want so that they stop attacking us" (which, really, is what your willingness to withdraw from the middle east as a negotiation offer amounts to) demonstrates that you have not formulated an even remotely realistic conception of this conflict.

Elind

12th November 2007, 08:28 PM

This is just an opinion of course, but everything you say doesn't fit together, in a number of ways. I don't think you are an atheist, for example. You don't sound like one and you have too much "understanding" for Islamists. Your logic sounds like it comes straight out of Gaza, or Iran and you dismiss any perspective or analysis out of hand if it is not "Islamic" purity, regardless how much more reasoned than anything you propose.

I smell a troll.

gumboot

12th November 2007, 08:48 PM

Why is it that Robert S. Leiken, Director of the Immigration and National Security Programs at the Nixon Center, and Steven Brooke, a Research Associate at the Nixon Center, disagree with you? They mention very clearly the Brotherhood's foundation:

Oh look!
Anti-Imperialism.

America is today's empire.

It's funny how you pick out "anti-imperialism" and completely ignore "religious revival" which is the primary ambition of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were opposed to Western encroachment not because it was foreign, but because it was immoral.

That article also talks about the Brotherhood being condemned by "jihadis" for being pro-democracy.

Plenty of Islamic Terrorists have simultaneously been active terrorists and strong supporters and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're not even remotely pro-democracy. Indeed establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood's caliphate and democracy are mutually exclusive.

The terrorist groups that stem from the Brotherhood left the brotherhood precisely because they grow to disagree with being pro-democracy. What could possibly be radicalising these people? Where is the engine that drives people to leave a group with democratic aims and form groups with non-democratic aims?

The Muslim Brotherhood's aims are anti-democratic, and the terrorist groups that have been spawned from the Brotherhood did not "leave it". Many of them have been and are very closely associated with it.

-Gumboot

Pardalis

12th November 2007, 11:19 PM

You believe that on that grounds that I quoted what the Nixon Centre says about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Wow.

OK let's cut the crap.

You tell me right now what does "America out of the Middle East" mean, exactly.

How is that going to be done? Who is going to have to leave the Middle East? Are you saying every American should leave the region, all enterprises, every companies?

Do you include Israel in your "America out of the Middle East"?

How does that constitute a "negotiation"? What do we get in return? Why should a powerful nation accept the terms of a lunatic fringe group and not the other way around?

Also, you tell me right now what claims AQ has made that have any merit:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

gtc

12th November 2007, 11:54 PM

How do we negotiate over the status of Spain?

gumboot

13th November 2007, 12:38 AM

For anyone who is interested:

"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations, and to extend its power to the entire planet."
-Hasan al-Banna
founder, The Muslim Brotherhood

"The white man crushes us underfoot while we teach our children about his civilization, his universal principles and noble objectives... we are endowing our children with amazement and respect for the master who tramples our honor and enslaves us. Let us instead plant the seeds of hatred, disgust, and revenge in the souls of these children. Let us teach these children from the time their nails are soft that the white man is the enemy of humanity, and that they should destroy him at the first opportunity."
-Sayyid Qutb

The Muslim Brotherhood, and in particular its merging with the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb, is the starting point of modern Radical Islam.

Someone please explain how the modern, liberal and secular western world is supposed to negotiate with the world views expressed above?

And if we were to negotiate with such persons, would the mere act of negotiating with them abandon the most fundamental values upon which our civilisations is built, and for which countless generations have paid the heaviest toll to preserve intact?

-Gumboot

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 12:39 AM

It's funny how you pick out "anti-imperialism" and completely ignore "religious revival" which is the primary ambition of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were opposed to Western encroachment not because it was foreign, but because it was immoral.

Because they would have loved being a subject in an empire otherwise? I don't think so.

They wouldn't have cared that their government was foreign? Would you have cared?

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 12:57 AM

OK let's cut the crap.

You tell me right now what does "America out of the Middle East" mean, exactly.

How is that going to be done? Who is going to have to leave the Middle East? Are you saying every American should leave the region, all enterprises, every companies?.

Stop bombing. Stop supporting dictators in the region.

Do you include Israel in your "America out of the Middle East"?

Do you consider Israel to be America? The recruitment to militant groups since America's wars and the sanctions against Iraq make it clear that Israel is actually a minor issue to most of the people who have joined up.

How does that constitute a "negotiation"? What do we get in return? Why should a powerful nation accept the terms of a lunatic fringe group and not the other way around?

Normal relations with the countries of the region.
And many of those that don't join militant groups still want America to stop supporting dictators and to stop bombing.

Also, you tell me right now what claims AQ has made that have any merit:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Asked and answered.

Why don't you tell me why people in the region should love America. What has America done for the average Saudi? Is life so much better for Iraqis today? Why does the guy who brought down the statue of Saddam, on that April 9th we all remember so well, now regret his actions and say (even though he spent time in Saddam-era Abu Ghraib) that life was better under Saddam?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2037219,00.html

"I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."

You've dodged plenty of questions. And I've learnt your tactic. You won't dodge these. Tell us how much of a success the war in Iraq has been. How the deaths of so many has been worth it. How the displacement of so many people and the chaos has been worth it. After all, no-one has cause for complaint.

Those that look back at the hardship under Saddam as the Golden Years... They're just being lunatics.

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 01:41 AM

The Muslim Brotherhood, and in particular its merging with the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb, is the starting point of modern Radical Islam.

The Brotherhood did not merge with Qutb. He split from the Brotherhood.

Here's more of that article from the Nixon Centre: (pdf)
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

In prison, the guards applied the kind of torture that would make Arab nationalism infamous, in Egypt as well as in Iraq and Syria. The Brothers’ wounds throbbed with fateful questions: How could those who stood shoulder to shoulder with us against the British and the king now set their dogs on us? Can those tormenting devout Muslims really be Muslims themselves?

Sayyid Qutb, then the Ikhwan’s most profound thinker, produced an answer that would echo into the twenty-first century: these were the acts of apostates, kafireen. Accordingly, the torturers and their regime were legitimate targets of jihad.

But from his own cell, Hudaybi [now leader of the Brotherhood, having replaced the assassinated Banna] disputed Qutb’s conclusion. Only God, he believed, could judge faith. He rejected takfir (the act of declaring another Muslim an apostate), arguing that “whoever judges that someone is no longer a Muslim ... deviates from Islam and transgresses God’s will by judging another person’s faith.”

Within the Brotherhood, Hudaybi’s tolerant view -- in line with Banna’s founding vision -- prevailed, cementing the group’s moderate vocation.

But it appalled the takfiris, who streamed out of the Brotherhood.

Qutb, who breathed his last on Nasser’s gallows in 1966, went on to become the prophet and martyr of jihad.

A split in the brotherhood. The guy that led it remained moderate. Qutb split.

Unless you want to accuse the Nixon Centre of being lefties who know nothing.

Darth Rotor

13th November 2007, 09:38 AM

No. What we've seen is Vietnam grow as a nation and build diplomatic relations with the US because they don't have an American gun to their heads.

Supports my point.
No, it does not support your point, since you are misreading cause and effect.

Who is the strategic problem for Viet Nam, since the late 1970's? Not America.

China. The "gun to their head" is China's, if anyone, and if you look up the border war of 1979, and the various clashes between China and Viet Nam over the Spratley Islands, and elsewhere in the South China Sea, you might grasp that.

It is in the interests of Viet Nam, if they worry about a local hegemon, to make alliances or working agreements with another power.

US is such a power. Japan is a power, India is a power, if on a different scale that US.

Not hard to figure out, if you take off the blinders.

Likewise, it was in America's interests, once the Wall fell, to look more broadly at who can be a regional partner, or ally, and thus, for all the bitter blood between our nations, rapproachment has proceeded with Viet Nam.

DR

Pardalis

13th November 2007, 10:19 AM

Stop bombing. Stop supporting dictators in the region.

So American companies and some military facilities could remain in the Middle East?

Do you consider Israel to be America? No, but AQ does. It is AQ we are talking about is it not?

The recruitment to militant groups since America's wars and the sanctions against Iraq make it clear that Israel is actually a minor issue to most of the people who have joined up.It seems to pose a big problem to Islamic extremists like AQ, if not all of them. That's their basic grievance, haven't you been following the news? AQ is calling it an American-Zionist crusade. Do you agree with that expression?

Normal relations with the countries of the region. I'm talking about AQ, qhich doesn't represent the interest of any country.

Try to follow the conversation.

And many of those that don't join militant groups still want America to stop supporting dictators and to stop bombing.
America should negotiate with them, not AQ or Islamic extremists.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

Asked and answered.Hardly. You don't understand AQ claims, yet you try to cherry pick anything that fits with your vague "America out of the Middle East", which you have still to explain.

It is pretty clear what AQ wants, you refuse to see it.

Why don't you tell me why people in the region should love America. I'm not saying they should

What has America done for the average Saudi? Why should America do anything for the average Saudi?

Is life so much better for Iraqis today? Of course not. the present Iraq war was a really huge mistake.

that life was better under Saddam?I'm not so sure, but I do hope the Iraqi sects and insurgents will reconciliate and form a governement, that's basically what's stoping the peace right now. If only that had happened there wouldn't be this mess right now, America would have been out by now. I'm sure the Bush administration wants nothing more to leave right now.

Remember that AQ, the ones we're discussing here (see, I'm keeping track of the topic). are the one of the reasons this Iraq qagmire is persisting. They are the ones who killl innocent Iraqis almost everyday, not Americans.

You're trying to argue against America when it's precisely AQ the problem in Iraq.

You've dodged plenty of questions. I'm still waiting for you to answer mine, but go ahead.

Tell us how much of a success the war in Iraq has been. How the deaths of so many has been worth it.

As I said, I disagree now with that decision, it was a grave mistake.
How the displacement of so many people and the chaos has been worth it.Right now? No, but I do hope things will get better once the Iraqi reconciliate.

Listen, I don't honestly think you're rooting for AQ, I was angry that you keep apologizing for them because you hate what's going on in the region.

I totally understand why you would feel angry about the war in Iraq, but one of the major components of what's going wrong in this region of the word is not just America, and you shouldn't side with the enemy to make a point, even if it's involuntary.

AQ are scum, they are lunatics, and nobody should negotiate with them. That was the topic so far, not the war in Iraq.

gumboot

13th November 2007, 10:37 AM

The Brotherhood did not merge with Qutb. He split from the Brotherhood.

Here's more of that article from the Nixon Centre: (pdf)
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

A split in the brotherhood. The guy that led it remained moderate. Qutb split.

Unless you want to accuse the Nixon Centre of being lefties who know nothing.

There account disagrees with the account provided by Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower. I won't repost the entire book here, but I'd recommend reading it. The entire first chapter deals with Qutb. At the time of his execution he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of the intentions of the Brotherhoods leaders, the reality is generations of Muslim Brotherhood members joined the organisation and, influenced by the philosophies of Qutb, became heavily involved in Jihad. They did this, not by splitting away from the Brotherhood, but through the Brotherhood.

-Gumboot

Elind

13th November 2007, 10:45 AM

Here's a little more on the so called brotherhood, and of course the politics of expedience:

In the 1920's there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930's, al-Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.
The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.
When war broke out, the Muslim Brotherhood promised in writing that they would rise up and help General Rommell and make sure that no English or American soldier was left alive in Cairo or Alexandria.
The Muslim Brotherhood began to expand in scope and influence during World War II. They even had a Palestinian section headed by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the great bigots of all time. Here, too, was a man -- The grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the Muslim Brotherhood representative for Palestine. These were undoubtedly Arab Nazis. The Grand Mufti, for example, went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the “Handjar” Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler's new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arab peninsula from then on to Africa -- grand dreams.
At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.
Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Britain was not alone. The French intelligence service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi they could, but they failed to quash the State of Israel.
What the British did then, they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid; it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.
But the Egyptians became nervous. Nasser ordered all of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt or be imprisoned, and we would execute them all. During the 1950's, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood like Azzam, became the teachers in the Madrasas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism.

Darth Rotor

13th November 2007, 10:56 AM

Here's a little more on the so called brotherhood, and of course the politics of expedience:

In the 1920's there was a young Egyptian named al Bana.
===
And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism.
Are you suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood, and its heirs, are mad at America and the West for changing sides?

By the way, is that your own work, or is that from another author? It seems to have been C & P'd, based on the font change.

DR

Pardalis

13th November 2007, 11:14 AM

Then a horrible thing happened.
Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948.

I'm having a hard time believing that.

The British hired people they just lost nearly a million (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/%7Ejobrien/reference/ob62.html) people to?

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 11:56 AM

Elind,
Let me guess...
source (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={0F956A35-69D8-4CC4-A05A-0F01651F14D9})

Frontpagemag, a small step up from JihadWatch. Progress of sorts. They occassionaly post responses to their articles.

There account disagrees with the account provided by Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower. I won't repost the entire book here, but I'd recommend reading it. The entire first chapter deals with Qutb. At the time of his execution he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of the intentions of the Brotherhoods leaders, the reality is generations of Muslim Brotherhood members joined the organisation and, influenced by the philosophies of Qutb, became heavily involved in Jihad. They did this, not by splitting away from the Brotherhood, but through the Brotherhood.

-Gumboot

I can see no reason why the Nixon Centre would be biased in favour of the Brotherhood. Perhaps it's my paraphrase that gets in the way. I did quote the article describing Qutb as the Brotherhood's "most profound thinker". That doesn't change that he fell out with the leadership on the issue quoted.

What does your book say about that leadership? Hudaybi.
Does your book mention the disagreements?
Does it mention any moderation at all?

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 12:02 PM

Not hard to figure out, if you take off the blinders.

Let none of us pretend that Darth is denying the end of the Vietnam war had anything to do with Vietnam softening towards America. And at the same time, let's not pretend that I ruled out all other factors.

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 12:18 PM

So American companies and some military facilities could remain in the Middle East?

I would assume most would want that. Certainly after feelings have died down. I'd imagine that China and India will get most of the oil deals immediately after America leaves. But it's not up to me, and I couldn't care either way.

No, but AQ does. It is AQ we are talking about is it not?

The leadership?
Judging by timing and numbers, most of the recruits joined because of sanctions against Iraq and the wars.

AQ is calling it an American-Zionist crusade. Do you agree with that expression?

No.
I blame America.

I'm talking about AQ, qhich doesn't represent the interest of any country.

I'm talking about the people who join because of the sanctions and the wars.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

Britain does and did. I'm British.

Why should America do anything for the average Saudi?

America does plenty TO the average Saudi. Supporting the Saudi government springs to mind.

Of course not. the present Iraq war was a really huge mistake.

So negotiation is off the table. War turns out not to produce the results you want. What's left? Another surge? Another war?

Listen, I don't honestly think you're rooting for AQ, I was angry that you keep apologizing for them because you hate what's going on in the region.

Well I avoided quoting one of your posts. I'm glad to see you changed it.

I totally understand why you would feel angry about the war in Iraq, but one of the major components of what's going wrong in this region of the word is not just America, and you shouldn't side with the enemy to make a point, even if it's involuntary.

Saying we should negotiate is not siding with the enemy.

Ironicly,
I would describe my ideals as American. I wouldn't describe Bush's ideals that way.

dudalb

13th November 2007, 12:18 PM

Fire Garden's inability to see evil in militant Islam is astouding.

Pardalis

13th November 2007, 12:41 PM

I'd imagine that China and India will get most of the oil deals immediately after America leaves. But it's not up to me, and I couldn't care either way.

You think China and India will be better? They won't support dictatorsand whatever else you accuse the US?

Come on... :rolleyes:

Just as long as it's not the US, you don't care... Your bias is showing.

Judging by timing and numbers, most of the recruits joined because of sanctions against Iraq and the wars.
Don't play games, everybody knows what AQ's claims are, except you.

No.Good, so AQ's claims have no merit?

I blame America.Of course you do.

I'm talking about the people who join because of the sanctions and the wars. We are talking about AQ.

Britain does and did. I'm British.And we're talking about America and AQ.

So negotiation is off the table. War turns out not to produce the results you want. What's left? Another surge? Another war?That doesn't have anything to do with AQ. AQ has no claim in Iraq, they are troublemakers there. Even the Iraqi insurgents are getting pissed at them.

Well I avoided quoting one of your posts. I'm glad to see you changed it.Yes, I was speaking out of anger, I apologize.

Saying we should negotiate is not siding with the enemy. What you propose is not negotiating, it's giving AQ what they want. AQ has no legitimacy in this issue, and giving them what they want would confirm that what they do is OK, which is unconscionable.

You don't even care to understand what AQ really wants, yet you want America to obey their terms.

Ziggurat

13th November 2007, 12:52 PM

Judging by timing and numbers, most of the recruits joined because of sanctions against Iraq and the wars.

So does that mean you think sanctions were a mistake? Wasn't one of the primary arguments against the invasion of Iraq that the sanctions were keeping Saddam contained? Funny thing, those sanctions are now gone. Perhaps you didn't notice.

I blame America.

Of course you do. That's the one thing you can be counted on for.

Saying we should negotiate is not siding with the enemy.

It is if nothing can be gained. Why you think Al Qaeda would ever give us anything in return for leaving the middle east is quite beyond me. Why would they? Their grievances don't stop there, and you still haven't come to grips with that inconvenient reality. Hell, you haven't even acknowleged it. And what possible disincentive could we create to prevent them from expanding their war after our withdrawl? What exactly would we do if the Persian Gulf started looking like the coast of Somalia?

Darth Rotor

13th November 2007, 12:58 PM

Let none of us pretend that Darth is denying the end of the Vietnam war had anything to do with Vietnam softening towards America. And at the same time, let's not pretend that I ruled out all other factors.
1. Piss poor tactic, fool, to try and put words into another's mouth. Stick to your own views, your mind reading stinks.

2. Nice try at moving the goal posts. Your ignorance of history is sad. The American / Viet Nam softening took some years to come about. Your claim about American gun to the head was, and is, rubbish. The root of the rapproachment was, wait for it, self interest on the part of both previously hostile parties.

Here's another shilling, go rent a clue.

DR

dudalb

13th November 2007, 01:37 PM

I wonder how long until FireGarden out and out says that 9/11 was justifed. He seems to be moving in that direction.

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 02:54 PM

I wonder how long until FireGarden out and out says that 9/11 was justifed. He seems to be moving in that direction.

9/11 was not justified.
The sanctions and war were not justified.

Violence leads to violence, but not with justice.

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 03:03 PM

1. Piss poor tactic, fool, to try and put words into another's mouth. Stick to your own views, your mind reading stinks.

Perhaps you didn't parse my sentence properly. I proposed we not pretend you are denying ....

2. Nice try at moving the goal posts. Your ignorance of history is sad. The American / Viet Nam softening took some years to come about. Your claim about American gun to the head was, and is, rubbish.

Do you think "gun to the head" is not an appropriate metaphor for waging war?

The root of the rapproachment was, wait for it, self interest on the part of both previously hostile parties.

I think that's what I implied: "What we've seen is Vietnam grow as a nation and build diplomatic relations with the US because they don't have an American gun to their heads."

That last being because the war ended. Rapproachment was hardly going to happen while the war raged.

Here's another shilling, go rent a clue.

DR

Keep it.
Save up for reading comprehension lessons.

Ziggurat

13th November 2007, 03:11 PM

The sanctions and war were not justified.

Of course. Because nothing should have impeded Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Violence leads to violence,

Sometimes. Sometimes violence also stops violence. It's a little something called "victory". I know, it's an alien concept to you, but it's actually quite common throughout history.

FireGarden

13th November 2007, 03:22 PM

You think China and India will be better? They won't support dictatorsand whatever else you accuse the US?

No, I don't think that. I think the locals will look someplace other than the USA. At least for a while. Wouldn't you in their place?

Negotiations could change that. But negotiations aren't going to happen.

That doesn't have anything to do with AQ. AQ has no claim in Iraq, they are troublemakers there. Even the Iraqi insurgents are getting pissed at them.

I've not pretended that talks with AQ would solve all the problems. They're not even where I would begin. All I say is that even AQ could be negotiated with.

Yes, I was speaking out of anger, I apologize.

No problem.

What you propose is not negotiating, it's giving AQ what they want. AQ has no legitimacy in this issue, and giving them what they want would confirm that what they do is OK, which is unconscionable.

You don't even care to understand what AQ really wants, yet you want America to obey their terms.

The IRA wanted Britain out of Ireland. They didn't get all of that out of negotiations. They got devolution and power-sharing, the freeing of prisoners.

Perhaps you don't trust your government to negotiate wisely. But, without talks, I think America will walk away from Iraq with the same as it walked away from Vietnam. How many more years can the war go on? Especially if Bush attacks Iran -- while Pakistan is 'unsettled' and the Turks are itching to deal with the Kurds.

Pardalis

13th November 2007, 03:35 PM

Perhaps you don't trust your government to negotiate wisely. But, without talks, I think America will walk away from Iraq with the same as it walked away from Vietnam.

I can see America negotiating with different factions in Iraq, I think that's what they are doing on a dayly basis. But no negotiations with Al Qaeda, no, never, not gonna happen, no way.

I think the problem between our views is how you view AQ. You compare them to the IRA, I compare them to the KKK. You don't negotiate with the KKK, never, they have a distorted view of reality, and they will never be fair and honest.

Elind

13th November 2007, 05:19 PM

I'm having a hard time believing that.

The British hired people they just lost nearly a million (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/%7Ejobrien/reference/ob62.html) people to?

The British didn't lose a million people, but the past is not pretty. Everybody helped or used Nazis after WWII, including the USA and the Papacy. I believe it's called pragmatism or ....scratch my back.....

Elind

13th November 2007, 05:27 PM

I wonder how long until FireGarden out and out says that 9/11 was justifed. He seems to be moving in that direction.

Like I said, I think he's a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood (I said troll, but what's the difference). He shares the logic and revisionist history of every Arab editorial on these issues. He pretends to be an atheist, but defends, or ignores, every statement direct from Muslims that counter his position on the Religion of Peace; and atheists coming from Muslim families with strong existing ties, and debates about Allah with compatriots..... That's something not heard of often, and those one does hear from receive death threats regularly.

Maybe he's looking for a job and trying to impress?:cool:

Elind

13th November 2007, 05:40 PM

Are you suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood, and its heirs, are mad at America and the West for changing sides?

By the way, is that your own work, or is that from another author? It seems to have been C & P'd, based on the font change.

DR

Sorry, I should have posted a link. It's from a guy called John Loftus and a lecture that he gave once, but it was longer. I just copied part of it for readability.

I've seen enough of what he says elsewhere to believe the history, he just has it concisely summarized from this perspective.

And no, I make no personal suggestions in this post, but the implied one is that the Muslim Brotherhood was able to regroup and even thrive, when they could have been eliminated as a viable group as Nazis, and should have been.

Of course that doesn't mean something else wouldn't crawl out after, but that appears to be the history.

Pardalis

13th November 2007, 07:11 PM

The British didn't lose a million people, but the past is not pretty. Everybody helped or used Nazis after WWII, including the USA and the Papacy. I believe it's called pragmatism or ....scratch my back.....

I would have to look for corroborating sources, that speech you quoted sounds dodgy to me. .

Elind

13th November 2007, 08:22 PM

By all means do so.

Here is the original link (which our Islamist friend already knows well, as one would expect)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={0F956A35-69D8-4CC4-A05A-0F01651F14D9} (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B0F956A35-69D8-4CC4-A05A-0F01651F14D9%7D)

There is a suggestion there on what to search under for more links, but be warned, these are not approved Islamic links. ;)

As to Loftus, I suspect he has reached his prime some time ago, but that doesn't mean he has made it all up.

gumboot

13th November 2007, 10:41 PM

What does your book say about that leadership? Hudaybi.
Does your book mention the disagreements?
Does it mention any moderation at all?

To be honest my main issue is with your contention that the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate. After the 1950's the Muslim Brotherhood turned away from the killing of fellow Muslims to achieve their aims, while others who embraced Qutb's teachings considered any Muslim who didn't agree with them to essentially be a non-Muslim.

I'd agree that the Muslim Brotherhood's methodology, in the last 50 years, has been "moderate".

But the fact remains that their unwavering aim is to Islamify the entire world under Sharia. I don't care if they intend to achieve this through suicide bombings or a jihad of hugs and kisses, I simply can't see any way of twisting a goal like that into "moderate", and I can't see any way in which the West could negotiate with it.

Call me crazy, but in my mind the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood automatically excludes them from being labeled "moderate".

-Gumboot

gumboot

13th November 2007, 10:52 PM

I'm having a hard time believing that.

The British hired people they just lost nearly a million (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/%7Ejobrien/reference/ob62.html) people to?

I don't find that hard to believe at all. Have you ever heard of Operation Paperclip?

Having said all that it's worth pointing out that some of the Islamic/Nazi link was propagated in anti-western terrorism rather than absorbed into western intelligence. Francois Genoud is a prime example - caretaker of the stolen Jewish gold and primary funder of ODESSA, he also became a key figure in early Islamic Terrorism, supporting such groups and individuals as the FLN, PFLP, and Carlos the Jackal, and co-founding the Al Taqwa Bank.

-Gumboot

FireGarden

14th November 2007, 12:55 AM

Sometimes violence also stops violence. It's a little something called "victory". I know, it's an alien concept to you, but it's actually quite common throughout history.

I've heard of victory.
I remember on this very board, April 9th, 2003. The statue was about to fall. Here's a blast from the past:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=3954&page=2

Melissa Johnson says: "Interesting too to see the reactions of the anti-crowd..."

I've been reading through it, and it's sad to remember the optimism.

I chime in in post 80, btw.

FireGarden

14th November 2007, 01:04 AM

To be honest my main issue is with your contention that the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate.

That's not even the contention of those working at the Nixon Centre. They contend that there is and was a moderate strand of the Brotherhood. They don't deny Qutb. They give both halves. What I want to know is: Does your source give both halves? Do they mention Hudaybi or any kind of split/disagreement?

FireGarden

14th November 2007, 01:17 AM

By all means do so.

Here is the original link (which our Islamist friend already knows well, as one would expect)
No. All it took to find it was a moment on google.

As for knowing about frontpagemag in general. Of course I've heard of it. And -- shock, horror -- I said they sometimes post responses and it turns out I'm right.

Worse! They've published an article by my sources from the Nixon Centre.

From FrontPage! Oh no! (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={268F6F64-5FFD-4440-9DB9-F6859EBD3887})

Response to Patrick Poole’s "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood"

But Poole prefers instead to fling childish and diversionary charges that we are “Democrats” and “progressives.” If Poole had cared to inquire, one of us was a leader of the American effort to oust the Sandinista Communists from power in Nicaragua, was attacked regularly in more or less similar fashion to Poole’s in the pages of the Nation, Rolling Stone and other leftist periodicals. But he was twice cited (once on April 15, 1985) for outstanding work on Central America by Ronald Reagan. Poole also might want to check with Frontpage’s own David Horowitz, who eagerly recruited Leiken to join his Second Thoughts movement, to be a featured speaker in the inauguration of the movement and to write two chapters in Horowitz’s edited volume on the issues. Leiken has changed neither his views about the subject nor his method: seek truth from facts.

Oh no!
Far from choosing a leftist, Islamist source... It turns out I chose a guy that worked with Horowitz.

I disown them!
I DISOWN THEM!
:rolleyes:

Over course, the truth is I can find sources that are much more supportive of the Brotherhood. But I know they would not be convincing. So I sought out a right wing source. (I just didn't realise how right wing).

I can't argue with this bit of advice they give:

That is what Nixon and Kissinger chose to do with China during the Cold War – a policy ratified by all their successors including Ronald Reagan. Neither Nixon nor Reagan embraced Marxism-Leninism when they allied with China against the main danger, thus splitting the ranks of the Communists and giving us a strategic ally. The polemics between the “revisionists” and the “Maoists” were the necessary precursor for these overtures. Today the polemics between the jihadists and the Brotherhood offers us a somewhat similar opportunity.

gumboot

14th November 2007, 02:52 AM

That's not even the contention of those working at the Nixon Centre. They contend that there is and was a moderate strand of the Brotherhood. They don't deny Qutb. They give both halves. What I want to know is: Does your source give both halves? Do they mention Hudaybi or any kind of split/disagreement?

Yes The Looming Tower provides ample information on the conflict between various Islamists, including that the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, from the 1950's onwards, were opposed to violence against Muslims while groups such as al-Jihad had no problem with it.

The methodology of the later Muslim Brotherhood leadership and more extreme terrorist groups was quite different.

Their ambition, however, was identical. It is their ambition, in my opinion, that makes them Extremists. Not their methodology.

(I suppose you could argue groups like al-Jihad were more extreme, but this doesn't change the fact that the Muslim Brothers were also extremists)

Additionally, the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership is only one piece of the puzzle. The links between members of the Brotherhood and Islamic Terrorism are strong and undeniable. For most of the most prominent figures in Islamic Terrorism today, the Brotherhood was the gateway to their ideological beliefs. The Brotherhood advocates suicide attacks on civilians to fight Israel. Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood) is designated a Terrorist Group by a number of nations and organisations, and prominent Brotherhood figures (past and present) such as Mamoun Darkazanli, Youssef Nada, Ahmed Huber, Francois Genoud and Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi have strong ties to Islamic Terrorism (not to mention strong ties to Nazism!).

Lastly, a key component of the Brotherhood's "mission statement" entitled The Project is deception - infiltration of the west and exploitation of Western liberal values by presenting a moderate and reasonable face to conceal their actual intentions, which are perhaps best summed up by their credo:

Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Moderate. Sure. :rolleyes:

-Gumboot

FireGarden

14th November 2007, 04:33 AM

Yes The Looming Tower provides ample information on the conflict between various Islamists, including that the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, from the 1950's onwards, were opposed to violence against Muslims while groups such as al-Jihad had no problem with it.

In what way, then, does it disagree with my source? If they both acknowledge the two streams of thought, then what's the problem?

As for the rest,
You seem to have little real trust in democracy itself.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/03/0081425

“The Egyptian people have the absolute right to choose their own leaders and programs,” he said. “We have a saying: the unjust state will vanish even if it is Islamic, but the just state will remain even if secular.”

[...] Islamic ideas also have gained popularity because of the good works done by Islamists. The Brotherhood, for example, runs job-training programs and hospitals, and doctors affiliated with the group offer free treatment for poor patients. Students at overcrowded and underfunded public schools are tutored by Ikhwan volunteers, and the group distributes pens and paper at the start of the school year.

Dictators will always become unpopular.
Have faith in democracy.

Bush certianly doesn't. He said at one point that America's policy of supporting dictators was counter-productive. But look at him now. Does he mean to be counter-productive?

And Silverstien makes a point also raised by Leiken and Brooke:

[...] While the West debates whether the Islamic world is ready for democracy, an equally appropriate question is whether the West is ready for Islamic democracy. A rare dissenting voice on engagement with the Islamist parties has come from Conflicts Forum, a small group of retired Western diplomats and intelligence officials. “People say that talking to them [Islamists] gives them legitimacy, but they already have legitimacy,” says Alastair Crooke, formerly of MI6 and the head of Conflicts Forum. “They say you are empowering them, but they already have power. These are the people that run the streets.” In his view, American and British analysts see a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam while missing a fundamental struggle within Islam itself, between “revivalists” who see electoral politics as a path to gain a stake in society and “revolutionaries” like Al Qaeda who reject that path. Political dialogue with the revivalists is urgent, since anti-Western sentiment, inflamed by the Iraq war, is pushing the pendulum toward Osama bin Laden, Crooke believes.

[...] [Milt] Bearden [a retired senior CIA official] draws a parallel with the post-World War II period, when Communist parties were gaining strength in Western Europe. “The choice was to counter that extreme with another extreme -- the far-right wing -- or to nurture the Social Democrats,” he says. “There were a lot of people who didn’t trust the Social Democrats, who saw them as being almost as bad as the Communists, but in the end working with them was the most effective way to achieve our goals.”