Islam - the Tip Toe Factor

[LordShaithis]

How many limb-severing fundamentalist Christian states are out there?

None. People have, in general, realized that putting Christians in charge is a moronic thing to do. And most violent Christians don't severe limbs, that I've met. THey use powertools on your joints.

So we've established that violent loony Christians are a fringe element in the developed world, and that while they're more common in the third world, they're apparently not powerful enough to control any countries. Thank you.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting to note that some of the parties mentioning "But what about those awful Christians" are the same peopel who complain bitterly when in a debate about the Bush administration others bring in Bill Clinton.

It is fallacious to use Bill Clinton as a counter to a criticism of the Bush Administration because it doesn't refute the criticisms. However, in this case, no one is refuting that there are violent Muslims out there. The problem is that there is no reason to conclude that the problem is any more intrinsic to Islam than it is to Christianity (not to mention my earlier and apparently disregarded point about how no one has explained precisely how we are to alter our approach to Islam). Thank you for completely evading the point and attempting to refocus onto an ad-hominem counter-attack.

[Darth Wong]

So we've established that violent loony Christians are a fringe element in the developed world, and that while they're more common in the third world, they're apparently not powerful enough to control any countries. Thank you.

In other words, you concede that violent Christians are not a virtually nonexistent fringe, despite your earlier claim that they were, and that the problem is more easily correlated to nation than to religion. Concession accepted.

[SirNitram]

How many limb-severing fundamentalist Christian states are out there?

None. People have, in general, realized that putting Christians in charge is a moronic thing to do. And most violent Christians don't severe limbs, that I've met. THey use powertools on your joints.

So we've established that violent loony Christians are a fringe element in the developed world, and that while they're more common in the third world, they're apparently not powerful enough to control any countries. Thank you.

No. We established that both religions have ridiculously violent, cruel, and inhuman groups, and that the First World is better equipped to keep them out of power than the Third. Wow. The First World Countries are better at something than their less developed brethren? What a thought..

[Stravo]

It's interesting to note that some of the parties mentioning "But what about those awful Christians" are the same peopel who complain bitterly when in a debate about the Bush administration others bring in Bill Clinton.

It is fallacious to use Bill Clinton as a counter to a criticism of the Bush Administration because it doesn't refute the criticisms. However, in this case, no one is refuting that there are violent Muslims out there. The problem is that there is no reason to conclude that the problem is any more intrinsic to Islam than it is to Christianity (not to mention my earlier and apparently disregarded point about how no one has explained precisely how we are to alter our approach to Islam). Thank you for completely evading the point and attempting to refocus onto an ad-hominem counter-attack.

The question did not say that Islam was intristicaly violent. You're reading into it what some others here have postulated, go back and read the original point. I said that Islam seems to be in the grip of violent radical fundamentalists, the same way the Church was in the grips of violent fundamentalists during the Inquisition.

If I were to say that the Bush admistration seems to be in the grip of a neo nazi conservative element, would it be then fair to say in response that all polticians are intrinsicly in the grip of some radical fringe in their party like Bill Clinton's administration? The accusation WAS NOT THERE. If you are responding to Shep's or Prawn's points then please say so but don't color what I stated in that same light because its not there.

To bring up the point that Chrsitainitry is no better than Islam says to me that your religious bias is showing.

[Darth Wong]

The question did not say that Islam was intristicaly violent. You're reading into it what some others here have postulated, go back and read the original point.

OK, I'm confusing you with some of the others in this thread.

I said that Islam seems to be in the grip of violent radical fundamentalists, the same way the Church was in the grips of violent fundamentalists during the Inquisition.

Except that there is no central Church, hence it is not possible for Islam as a monolithic whole to adopt any position. Some nations are in the grip of violent Islamic fundamentalists, which is what I've been saying since the start of this thread.

If I were to say that the Bush admistration seems to be in the grip of a neo nazi conservative element, would it be then fair to say in response that all polticians are intrinsicly in the grip of some radical fringe in their party like Bill Clinton's administration?

The Bush administration is a collective entity, with a leadership structure and something resembling unity of purpose. This analogy does not hold water.

The accusation WAS NOT THERE. If you are responding to Shep's or Prawn's points then please say so but don't color what I stated in that same light because its not there.

Fine, but your point is no more valid than theirs is.

To bring up the point that Chrsitainitry is no better than Islam says to me that your religious bias is showing.

How? Are you arguing that the statement is not true?

[Joe]

Alright, here's final, definitive proof of Islam's inferiority.

They hate dogs.

note: I realize this is a serious discussion, and I'm kidding.

[AniThyng]

Alright, here's final, definitive proof of Islam's inferiority.

They hate dogs.

note: I realize this is a serious discussion, and I'm kidding.

nonsense, they merely see the truth: Cats are superior to all

note: i'm kidding, too.




[/quote]

[LordShaithis]

In other words, you concede that violent Christians are not a virtually nonexistent fringe, despite your earlier claim that they were,

Did you miss the phrase "domestic fundies" in my initial post? Domestically, they are a fringe. When the Third World was brought up, I addressed that.

and that the problem is more easily correlated to nation than to religion.

And yet when it comes to nations, we see no Christian theocracies having people hacked to death. We see no Christian theocracies at all. While lunatic Christians exist, moreso in poorly-educated countries, they wield nowhere near the power or numbers of jihad-happy Islam.

Concession accepted.

*yawn*

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you concede that violent Christians are not a virtually nonexistent fringe, despite your earlier claim that they were,

Did you miss the phrase "domestic fundies" in my initial post? Domestically, they are a fringe. When the Third World was brought up, I addressed that.

How? By evading the point and continuing to pretend that somehow, nonviolent Muslims are responsible for the conduct of violent Muslims?

and that the problem is more easily correlated to nation than to religion.

And yet when it comes to nations, we see no Christian theocracies having people hacked to death. We see no Christian theocracies at all. While lunatic Christians exist, moreso in poorly-educated countries, they wield nowhere near the power or numbers of jihad-happy Islam.

So? You're still talking about them as if they're a monolithic block.

Concession accepted.

*yawn*

I guess that response works better than admitting that you have no case for treating one group of Muslims as responsible for the behaviour of another.

[The Dark]

and that the problem is more easily correlated to nation than to religion.

And yet when it comes to nations, we see no Christian theocracies having people hacked to death. We see no Christian theocracies at all. While lunatic Christians exist, moreso in poorly-educated countries, they wield nowhere near the power or numbers of jihad-happy Islam.

Based on what I've read, the majority of "lunatic Christians" exist in Muslim theocracies or near-theocracies. The problem seems to correlate both to income and to government.

[LordShaithis]

Huh? All I've ever tried to point out is that Islam's "bloodthirsty loony" faction is much larger and more influential than Christianty's.

[Coyote]

Christianity's time in the rulership seat of nations has come and gone-- it was during the Middle Ages and began to fade (very slowly) during the Enlightenment. Now, while Christian fundie governments have existed in the past they are pretty rare now, if they exist at all right now (I can't think of any Christian governments, especially Fundie ones).

And loonie Fundie Christian terrorists exist all over, even here in the States. But as a decisive force in current affairs, Christianity has lost its punch, and more blood has been shed in the name of political ideology recently (100 million or so for Communism alone, IIRC).

But the problem in Islam is only partially connected to religious-run states. In truth, only Saudi Arabia and Iran (and for awhile, Afghanistan) are run by actual religious dictates and priests. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, the Gulf states, etc, are places where Islam is the dominant social religion but not the driving force of government.

But the issue is why the Moderates don't step up to reign in the Fundamentalists. I wish I knew. Probably because many in the Islamic world feel-- as Matahir implied-- that the Islamic world is beat down, oppressed, mistreated and abused, etc, and the only way to fight back is with terrorism. Lets face it, it does seem to be the only time the West actually pays attention to the Muslims as a serious power since the Ottoman times. And since these tantrums of terror work, they keep going on.

Giving them money to improve their economies and way of life is a canard. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were from well-fed, well-educated, well-travelled and moneyed families. They had the silver platter and everything on it. The answer is twofold: the West has to start treating the Arab/Islamic world like a worthy and respectful partner; conversely, the Muslim world has to reign in their violent murderers (including the "priests" that fan their flames) and act like a society deserving of that respect.

[Darth Wong]

Christianity's time in the rulership seat of nations has come and gone-- it was during the Middle Ages and began to fade (very slowly) during the Enlightenment. Now, while Christian fundie governments have existed in the past they are pretty rare now, if they exist at all right now (I can't think of any Christian governments, especially Fundie ones).

And loonie Fundie Christian terrorists exist all over, even here in the States. But as a decisive force in current affairs, Christianity has lost its punch, and more blood has been shed in the name of political ideology recently (100 million or so for Communism alone, IIRC).

Christianity has not lost its punch; it has merely become dominated by the moderates, thanks to various social movements and bolstered by the outstanding material success of the western (predominantly Christian) nations (moralistic philosophy has never been particularly succesful in the midst of misery). But make no mistake: Christianity continus to exert its hold over western governments; it's just that the success of the moderate movement has led to drastic changes in the list of things Christians view as acceptable. The things they do not view as acceptable continue to be relentlessly persecuted in many nations (prostitution being the most obvious example).

But the problem in Islam is only partially connected to religious-run states. In truth, only Saudi Arabia and Iran (and for awhile, Afghanistan) are run by actual religious dictates and priests. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, the Gulf states, etc, are places where Islam is the dominant social religion but not the driving force of government.

That is simply not true; the fact that nations such as Syria have not formalized the Islamic influence on their government does not mean it is not a driving force.

But the issue is why the Moderates don't step up to reign in the Fundamentalists. I wish I knew. Probably because many in the Islamic world feel-- as Matahir implied-- that the Islamic world is beat down, oppressed, mistreated and abused, etc, and the only way to fight back is with terrorism. Lets face it, it does seem to be the only time the West actually pays attention to the Muslims as a serious power since the Ottoman times. And since these tantrums of terror work, they keep going on.

Exactly how do you propose the moderates "step up to reign in the fundamentalists?" Publicly insist that the Koran preaches peace and tolerance? They're already doing that. Use some kind of coercion? Sorry, but they don't seem to have the power to accomplish that. What more do you expect them to do? Quite frankly, it seems to me that what the neo-cons really want is for moderate Muslims everywhere to cease criticizing American foreign policy, which is an unreasonable demand and has nothing to do with "reigning in the fundamentalists".

Giving them money to improve their economies and way of life is a canard. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were from well-fed, well-educated, well-travelled and moneyed families. They had the silver platter and everything on it.

So? People in Hollywood are filthy rich too, yet they spend all of their time worrying about the plight of the poor. This kind of seemingly contradictory activism is hardly unusual.

The answer is twofold: the West has to start treating the Arab/Islamic world like a worthy and respectful partner; conversely, the Muslim world has to reign in their violent murderers (including the "priests" that fan their flames) and act like a society deserving of that respect.

I don't think you have made much of an effort to put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim moderate. Where we see terrorism vs legitimate military action, they see terrorism vs terrorism. We make a distinction which seems enormously important to us: "they deliberately target civilians, while we target enemy fighters and civilian casualties are unintentional". But do you really think this distinction means anything to the people on the receiving end?

To the average Muslim, the use of rockets and bombs rather than individual arrests means something more than "collateral damage". It means "they don't give a fuck about our women and children." Imagine if the US federal government was going after domestic terrorists (think McVeigh) and decided to use a fucking bomb on a residential neighbourhood in some American city because one of them was suspected of being in one of the apartments. How would you react?

As far as they're concerned, Israel and America are one conjoined entity (and why shouldn't they think that, given the history of political, economic, and military support?), and the actions of Israel are as much George Bush's fault as they are Ariel Sharon's fault. So while the moderates may oppose violence on principle, how much risk do you think the average moderate is going to take? How much effort do you think the average moderate is going to make, when he perceives one kind of terrorism against another?

The Islamic moderates probably think of the fundies vs America in the same way a lot of us here in North America tend to think of Israel vs Palestine: "fuck 'em both; they deserve each other".

[Coyote]

Christianity has not lost its punch; it has merely become dominated by the moderates, ...But make no mistake: Christianity continus to exert its hold over western governments...

As a behind-the-scenes factor, yes, I was talking about Christian governments, ie, governments that essentially state that they are Christian in nature, intent and purpose and serve Christian goals for their people. But yes, they continue to be a force in activism behind the government.

... Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, the Gulf states, etc, are places where Islam is the dominant social religion but not the driving force of government.

That is simply not true; the fact that nations such as Syria have not formalized the Islamic influence on their government does not mean it is not a driving force.

Actually, it is much like America-- where the most widely-observed religion is Christianity and Christian activists try to influence gov't (as stated above) but the actual church does not run the daily services of government. In the Arab-Islamic states I listed, Islam is the predominant religion but Islamic militants such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Takfir al-Hijrah, and others are not embraced by the people in power.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been rounded up and jailed in Egypt, placed in camps and subjected to torture; in Syria the Brotherhood took control of the town of Hama, which then-President Hafez Assad then razed with tank and artillery fire. Contrast with Afghanistan, for example, where they were allowed to enter and operate training facilities; and Iran, which funds militant Islamic groups. (Syria does to, but for the purposes of carrying out a proxy war with Israel and to keep the groups out of Syria itself-- buying peace and redirecting violence).

Exactly how do you propose the moderates "step up to reign in the fundamentalists?" Publicly insist that the Koran preaches peace and tolerance? They're already doing that. Use some kind of coercion? Sorry, but they don't seem to have the power to accomplish that. What more do you expect them to do?

Control of the 'message of Islam' comes from the madrassas, or religious schools, and the mosques. Moderates can try to influence who gets appointed to become an Imam in their local mosques, and block those whom they think would do nothing but stir needless agitation. Madrassas and Mosques are frequently property held by a waqf, or religious endowment (a kind of 'holding company' for religious purposes). He who donates to that waqf has financial pull over who gets to be appointed to either post. It's grassroots, it is not glamorous, and it is slow-- but it works.

Giving them money to improve their economies and way of life is a canard. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were from well-fed, well-educated, well-travelled and moneyed families. They had the silver platter and everything on it.

So? People in Hollywood are filthy rich too, yet they spend all of their time worrying about the plight of the poor. This kind of seemingly contradictory activism is hardly unusual.

Some of the comments here have focused on rebuilding/revitalizing the economies of Muslim states and offering more opportunities for advancement for people from these lands. It is a worthy goal and I do support it, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking we can toss money at the problem and watch it dry up.

I don't think you have made much of an effort to put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim moderate. Where we see terrorism vs legitimate military action, they see terrorism vs terrorism.

...To the average Muslim, the use of rockets and bombs rather than individual arrests means something more than "collateral damage". It means "they don't give a fuck about our women and children." Imagine if the US federal government was going after domestic terrorists (think McVeigh) and decided to use a fucking bomb on a residential neighbourhood in some American city because one of them was suspected of being in one of the apartments. How would you react?

I'd probably join a resistance group of my own, so put that way, yes, I can see the point. If the local government is willing to work with us-- and I think it is possible if we do change a few foreign policies-- then the local police can handle it. But if the Muslim gov't has decided to be belligerent for its own reasons, we have little recourse. We can't let terrorists attack with impunity.

While I have no problem with the use of spies or assassins, or sending in covert teams to take out the one guy that is actually causing trouble, for some reason the rest of the country seems to think that is 'uncivilized'. I agree with you; it is no better to bomb a house, but until the people of the US wake up and realize all this, we're stuck with what we have.

How much effort do you think the average moderate is going to make, when he perceives one kind of terrorism against another?

Well, there lies part of the problem-- I am not denying that we have some cleaning up of our own acts to carry out; I am also saying that tyhe Muslim world has to take out its own trash as well.

[Ronaldo]

I agree. Between the overzealous tolerance of the left and the religious sacred cow-ism of the right neither side will admit the core problem: fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and prevelant.

It's in the majority in most islamic nations and the moderates are unwilling to take any action to stop it. While only a handful are actually terrorists a lot have the same intolerant mentality and carry out the barbaric islamic law in their countries. Stonings, old fashioned sword chop beheadings, torture and more are common in the worst nations. Does anyone want to argue that places like Taliban Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia aren't horrid human rights abusers of basic human rights? Intolerance and anti-semitism are rampant in the Muslim world.

And if the horrors they inflict on themselves aren't enough that's a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. Radical Islam is the driving force behind some of the worst terrorists groups and on going conflicts out there.


We need to stop pretending things are alright. They're not. So much of the Islamic world is backsliding into a Dark Ages mentality and it needs to stop. We need to stop tiptoeing around the issue and put serious pressure on Islam to clean up it's act. They need to know that terrorism and abusive religion have no place in a civilized world. Islam doesn't have to be this way but we need to stop pretending that radical islam is okay.

Instead too many people make excuses, waffle and double talk for fear of offending Muslims.

I agree with you on this issue. If we don't get a handle on the situation radical Islam will instigate even more brutality in the world.

[AniThyng]

And if the horrors they inflict on themselves aren't enough that's a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. Radical Islam is the driving force behind some of the worst terrorists groups and on going conflicts out there.

don't forget Israeli policy that also does nothing but drive the moderate palestenians into the arms of the only groups that seem to have thier interests at heart.

here's a hint: you cannot hope to change the mind of the radical muslims just by virtue of being america. but you *can* use it to affect *real* change in the way *Israel* does things.

As far as they're concerned, Israel and America are one conjoined entity (and why shouldn't they think that, given the history of political, economic, and military support?), and the actions of Israel are as much George Bush's fault as they are Ariel Sharon's fault. So while the moderates may oppose violence on principle, how much risk do you think the average moderate is going to take? How much effort do you think the average moderate is going to make, when he perceives one kind of terrorism against another?

or didn't anyone agree with this?

[Xenophobe3691]

And if the horrors they inflict on themselves aren't enough that's a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. Radical Islam is the driving force behind some of the worst terrorists groups and on going conflicts out there.

don't forget Israeli policy that also does nothing but drive the moderate palestenians into the arms of the only groups that seem to have thier interests at heart.

here's a hint: you cannot hope to change the mind of the radical muslims just by virtue of being america. but you *can* use it to affect *real* change in the way *Israel* does things.

Don't turn it into an IVP debate, dammit, we're talking about the pussy moderate Islamic majority being unable or unwilling to silence the Fundamentalist minority.

[Coyote]

don't forget Israeli policy that also does nothing but drive the moderate palestenians into the arms of the only groups that seem to have thier interests at heart.

C'mon, anyThing, Muslims can think for themselves and act on their own initiative. They do not exist for the sole purpose of reacting to Israel's actions. Muslims can take the initiative and be very pro-active and offer alternatives that Israel has not thought of.

For millions of people to lay down and say "it is all America's and Israel's fault" is to give up and hand over the keys to the people they claim are oppressing them. Some of what Mahatir said was true-- Muslims need to quit being the helpless victims and stand up and become world partners, without this self-effacing pity trip used to rationalize murder.

A lot of world players would be willing to help Muslim/Arab states if the intolerant murderers and fanatics were reigned in. Fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, for example, who threw young girls back into a burning building because they were fleeing while "immodestly dressed".... it is really hard to drum up support for assholes like that.

No more hiding behind "mean old Israel"... this is about what Muslims can do to help themselves.

[Darth Wong]

No more hiding behind "mean old Israel"... this is about what Muslims can do to help themselves.

Let's say you're a moderate Muslim, which means that you probably don't live in an Islamic theocracy, or if you do, you're in the minority. Precisely what would you do in order to implement this "reigning in" that people keep demanding?

[Coyote]

Let's say you're a moderate Muslim, which means that you probably don't live in an Islamic theocracy, or if you do, you're in the minority. Precisely what would you do in order to implement this "reigning in" that people keep demanding?

There are many things that can be done. I would find out who administers the local waqf fund for my school and mosque and talk to them as a involved parent and/or citizen. I'd talk with friends and neighbors and try to get like-minded people to donate more to waqfs that support a more 'mainstream' message. I'd play close attention to what the schoolkids are learning and try to counter any propaganda that seems violent or intolerant-- and when I can, I'd use the Qur'an itself, asa well as the Hadith, or words of Mohommed.

Part of the Qur'an states that (and I paraphrase) "Allah put many nations on the Earth so that no one single nation can rise up and enslave all others". Therefore, the existance of many different nations and points of view is in Allah's best interest. To wipe them out or convert them all is clearly not what Allah planned. (hey, if a person is religious and only a religious message will appeal to them, then I will approach them with a message that will reach them on their own terms). It is just one example-- there are others that can be had.

None of this is Earth-shattering or dramitic. It involves nothing more than beign a responsible and involved citizen and parent. Maybe boring-- a PTA meeting is certainly not as dramatic as picking up a rifle and blazing away-- but this is the way politics work. All politics are borne of local concerns and local concerns are usually centered around what is best for a person's family. A thousand-year war is certainly not in a family's best interest.

If "moderate" Muslims are truly the majority, as people claim, then these workaday joes can take back what is rightfully theirs in short time-- and their religion/way of life/culture can continue to thrive, uncontested, among nations.

If the lunatics and fascists think that war is what the people want, then war is what the people will get. When the people say, "enough of the bullshit-- we have several million square acres of land and plenty of room for economic growth. We can handle giving a few thousand acres to a people who are, at the heart of it, our distant religous cousins."

Of course this means that Israel will have to act according to the norms of civilization. I never questioned that responsibility. I have voiced my objections to Israeli policies-- but this is about the Muslims. If they let themselves be sidetracked by excuses (ie: "it is all Israel and the Great Satan's fault") then they will continue to re-act instead of act, and be second-tier players on the world stage forever-- as well as providing a handly excuse for these powers to continue framing them and fighting them as terrorists.

[AniThyng]

well, cayote, you make some good strong points there, and i can't deny the idea that the muslim world must move beyond palestine for now to concentrate on economic and social growth.

i'll go do a bit of searching on arab news resources to see wether they actually are going to do anything about that...

really, until that speech the biggest issue on my personal agenda was what brand of coffee to buy to keep me awake through the night, and how to drive down my dangerously hot CPU's core temp without buying a new HSF...so i apologize if i sound daft and naive

i have realised the 1st real truth about being a non-muslim who is well-off and looking at the whole thing: i go where my wallet and my personal pleasures lead me. and that direction is..uh..japan[if my sig is not obvious]..and..well..uh..american computer games..,so...um..the rather abstract nature of the palestenian issue [i mean, seriously, i'm not going to strap myself on a plane and go there with a big Red Cresent on my sleeve, though quite a few Malaysians have]

GAH.
my head hurts. i feel evil.