What is wrong with the Islamic world?

[farooqm78]

(I miss Reagan @ Sep 30 2004, 02:51 PM)

Christians aren't crashing planes into buildings in the name of God. And if they did Christian leaders would loudly condemn it. Instead we have muslims around the world cutting peoples heads off, committing genocide and declaring holy war against the entire non-muslim world. Not only this but they are preaching hate towards Jews in their mosks.

Ok lets get one thing clear here, those who have comitted terrorist acts and vocally support these action are not sane people. Like I siad pin pointing one religion for terrorists actions is not being fair. If this was the case then the IRA should be labelled a Christian Terrorist group, blowing up cars in the UK and Ireland and killing innocent people.

The fact of the matter is the media is only projecting the vocal minority of lunatics. The reason why a large proportion of the silent moderates is not being vocal is fear for their own life. I being a muslim and having certain views similar to that of the west am a bigger threat to these terrorist than the western folks.

I have commited the biggest sin in the eyes of the terrorists by having made friends with christian, jews and hindus.

If these people are really muslims then they should follow the teaching of the Quran and the Prophet which promote peaceful co-existance with non-muslims. Christain, Jews and Muslims are of the same progeny. We all are decendents of Ibrahim (Abraham).

[Guest eureka]

The problem with what you say is that terrorists, in general, are sane. They are people with a cause who have come to see, or been persuaded, that violence is the way to achieve theor goals. History is full of examples of this: there is nothing new about terrorism.

What is new is the technology available and the potential scale of terrorist incidents. But, a terrorist could not be identified by his personality and behaviour in society. When we can separate the fact of terrorism from our religious biases, we will be on the way to some constructive campaign against terror whatever its shape and wherever it appears. It is just too convenient to trumpet 9/11 and use one of thousands of events as a political crutch.

[August1991]

What is the likelyhood of a Western Style democracy being successful in any Arab country. What works for one person does not neccessarily work for another, and here we are talking about chaning millions of peoples views. This can only come through self realization not by imposing it from the outside.

I agree with you, farooq. I can understand why America (and the UK) got involved in this war in Iraq but it would have been better if the Iraqis had done this themselves.

[Example: We have a fundamental, ongoing problem in Canada/Quebec that has yet to be resolved. But we should resolve it our own way, in our own time - and so far, we've been fortunately left in peace to do that. Iraqis didn't get this opportunity.]

Moderates from both worlds should work for and promote more open understanding and tolerence for each other.

True, but where I have seen sectarian violence start , I have been struck by the small number of people actively involved (5% or so?) and the all the others (95% or so) who are suddenly forced to live with madness.

One can debate whether there is genuine tolerance or the veneer of tolerance (closet rascism) but at least people can live in peace. It is now the case where I fear Christians feel unsafe in the Middle East and Muslims feel unsafe in the West. That is not right.

Christain, Jews and Muslims are of the same progeny. We all are decendents of Ibrahim (Abraham).

I have often thought about that irony. It is as if an argument between two brothers is worse than between two neighbours.

If this was the case then the IRA should be labelled a Christian Terrorist group, blowing up cars in the UK and Ireland and killing innocent people.

But the IRA was perceived as being Catholic - at least in the UK.

-----

Ok lets get one thing clear here, those who have comitted terrorist acts and vocally support these action are not sane people.

That is my feeling too.

The problem with what you say is that terrorists, in general, are sane. They are people with a cause who have come to see, or been persuaded, that violence is the way to achieve theor goals.

I disagree.

I won't go into what I mean by "sane" or "insane". Suffice to say that even fanatics are subject to the law of gravity.

eureka, if by describing terrorists as "sane", you believe that it is possible to deal with terrorism by dealing with the "root cause" of their "frustration", then I believe you are seriously mistaken.

The West wants to introduce Westerns Style democracy in the Arab and Islamic World, where as the terrorists see the re-birth of their version/interpretation of Islam in demolishing Western power.

farooq, do you think that the "West" wants to do that? Do you think the terrorists want to do that?

[Guest eureka]

There is no reason to believe that terrorists are "insane": I agree with you, though, that there may be large disagreement about what sanity is.

Not to bring Bush into this as other than an example, I believe that Bush is insane while most terorists are not. Bush fits the definition of the common successful business executive who is complately amoral.

I certainly do beloeve that terrorism can only be dealt with by addressing the "root" causes. All terrorists are terrorists for a reason and a cause. You must distinguish between gangsters or brigands and terrorists. No person becomes a terrorist until perceiving that there is some form of oppressive power to fight. Terror has been with us since the beginning of civilization and will be until the end unless the human will to power can be modified.

It can be mitigated in the extreme forms we are now seeing if we do attend to the plight of the Palestinians and the century old exploitation of the Middle and Near East. The West has, in large measue, earned the hatred of that part of the world. It was not always so and that world was closer to the West in the early 20th. century than it is now. We betrayed it for our own convenience.

Palestine, of course, brings in a greater complication.

[barbarosa]

The West wants to introduce Westerns Style democracy in the Arab and Islamic World, where as the terrorists see the re-birth of their version/interpretation of Islam in demolishing Western power.

Lets get one thing straight The only reason The"west" wants to introduce "western style of democracy" into the Arab world is because The middle east controls over55% of the world oil reserves

Thier is nothing wrong with the islamic world Its only a small group of Radicals with plenty of influence who give it a bad name O and by the way I really do hate it when anyone says anything ant- islamic as iam a muslim(believer of islam) so watch your mouth

[barbarosa]

were did you get the idea that terrorist are insane

if taliban is a muslim extremist then bush is a christian extermist

The only reson he has to stay in Iraq(other than oil) is to protect Israel if your wondering were i got this than mabye you should of watched his debate, were he allowed himself to unconciously slip his motives a number of times

[kimmy]

Why does a discussion of the Islamic world always get bogged down in terrorism?

If we allow that the terrorists are a tiny minority and leave them out of it, is there not still a lot to talk about?

Once, the Islamic world was a leader in every area of human achievement. They certainly aren't any more. What happened?

-kimmy

[barbarosa]

nothing happened. Its called the rise and fall of nations, after the prophet died a combination of bad leadership andd wrong decisions (not to mention the crusades) turned the Islamic Empire into a nation of bloodthirsty warriors

[barbarosa]

ok maybe blood thirsty was a little to strong

[kimmy]

nothing happened.

"nothing happened" seems to be the root of the problem, as I see it.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I got this quote from Wikipedia, about the Muslims 'doing nothing'.

The Ottoman Empire was among the world's most powerful political entities in the 16th and 17th centuries when the nations of Europe felt threatened by its steady advance through the Balkans. From 1512 onwards, the Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph of Islam and the Ottoman Empire, from 1512 till 1922 (or 1924) was synonymous with the Khilafa or the Islamic State.

[kimmy]

Interesting. So, you're saying that at a time when Western nations were undergoing great changes in political, economic, technological, and philosophical changes, the Islamic world was still under the sway of a centuries-old monarchy that was unwilling and unable to adapt and ultimately declined and perished as a result of its inability to keep pace.

Indeed, more evidence that "nothing happened."

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I would expect that 'political and philisophical' changes were unwelcome, as the Koran is the undisputed (according to Muslims) Word of God. Other than that, it is probably a good thing (for me) that Islam did not seek global dominance, or to be the most powerful and best equipped militant nation.

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

I would expect that 'political and philisophical' changes were unwelcome, as the Koran is the undisputed (according to Muslims) Word of God.

This is promising. I think that this is the sort of thing that August1991 was pondering when he began this thread.

Other than that, it is probably a good thing (for me) that Islam did not seek global dominance, or to be the most powerful and best equipped militant nation.

This, however, is less promising...

I too am glad the Ottoman empire didn't achieve domination over Europe. Was it because "they did not seek it"? Or is it because they failed at it? They battled to expand into Europe for over 250 years. They claimed territory in southeastern Europe. Hungary, Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, and Romania were under Ottoman domination. Their further attempts at expansion ran up against Austria-- the Hapsburgs-- and resulted in historic battles in the Seige of Vienna and the Battle of Vienna.

At the Seige of Vienna in 1526, the Ottoman empire pitched a massive army-- over 300,000 men-- against Vienna. Even this early, their tactics and technology were bested by their European opponents. Despite a huge numerical advantage, the Ottoman army was repulsed, with huge losses.

At the Battle of Vienna, 1683, the combined effort of Austria, Germany, and Poland defeated a larger Ottoman army. Ottoman advances were stopped again, and it was their last major push into central Europe. The Austrians fought the Ottomans for 16 more years, taking Ottoman territories in eastern Europe. Even after that, the Ottoman sultans didn't give up on Europe and had more clashes with Austria in the 18th century.

In the 19th century the sultans, recognizing that they were falling badly behind their European rivals, attempted reforms. They recognized that their military was badly outdated, and attempted to reform things. The sultan's own elite infantry, the Janissaries, were opposed to any reform that threatened their power within the empire. In 1826 the sultan used his elite cavalry, the Spahis, to massacre the Janissaries to clear the obstacle to reform. French military experts were brought in to modernize the Ottoman armies. And they failed-- the Ottomans lacked both the industrial capability of building modern weaponry in sufficient quantities, and the willingness to accept that the foreigners' modern ideas were more effective than their traditions.

Why did the Ottoman empire lack the industrial capacity to equip a modern army?

-kimmy

[August1991]

Resurrect this old thread for two links:

Kinsella on the false Newsweek story about Korans in washrooms:

This is appalling. Not only they did they "get it wrong," they actually contributed to DEATHS of people around the globe. This is one of those rare instances where the Muslim community, and the U.S. military, have a shared interest in putting behind bars any of the journalists and editors associated with this extraordinary libel. But, thanks to the absurdities of the First Amendment, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, desecrated the Koran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.

Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations. In Afghanistan, Muslim leaders gave Washington three days to offer a response to the story.

G&M

These deaths are not Newsweek's fault. No judge would ever accept a defence along the lines of "the newspaper made me do it... "

----

The young Palestinian Christian woman, in love with a Muslim man not approved for her, was defying traditions that required her to have her father's approval to marry. With her wedding clothes and makeup carefully packed, Ms. Habash was going to cross the Allenby Bridge with Samer, the love of her life, and elope with him in Jordan.

But first, they had to get past a checkpoint. And Samer's documents, the border guards said, were not in order.

They turned back. Ms. Habash's family, accompanied by the local governor, caught up to her and angrily dragged her back to Ramallah. She was berated and beaten, told that she could never see Samer again, that she could either marry her cousin or go to Rome and become a nun. In desperation, she jumped -- some reports suggest she was pushed -- off her family's fourth-floor balcony, and wound up in hospital with a fractured pelvis and other injuries.

....

When she was well enough to begin walking, the hospital sent her home. And after a few days of virtual house arrest and one last, desperate attempt to see her betrothed, she was dead -- one of at least seven so-called honour killings in the Palestinian territories this year, five of them in the past month.

Her father, who beat her over the head with an iron bar, is expected to serve just six months in prison for the crime, courtesy of a 1960 Jordanian law, still in force in the West Bank, that allows more lenient punishment for the murder of a woman committed by her father, brother or husband to reclaim the family's honour.

G&M

----

In both these cases, it is ultimately the lack of the "scientific method" in people's thinking.

In this sense, I see a major difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, or the Islamic world and the Christian world.

The western world (even Christian fundamentalists) accept the scientific method. That is, they are willing to accept that a world view requires evidence from the real world. In much of the non-western world, this is not the case.

[kimmy]

Did Newsweek "get it wrong"? Or do they simply lack sufficient documentation to prove that they "got it right"?

In respect to the notion of honor killings, I'll mention that I recall reading somewhere that in Brazil, "honor killings" of cheating wives or girlfriends are also not uncommon, and given laughable treatment in court of law.

-k

[Black Dog]

Resurrect this old thread for two links:

Kinsella on the false Newsweek story about Korans in washrooms:

Except Newsweek hasn't admited the story is false.

When is a correction not a correction?

NEWSWEEK was not the first to report allegations of desecrating the Qur'an. As early as last spring and summer, similar reports from released detainees started surfacing in British and Russian news reports, and in the Arab news agency Al-Jazeera; claims by other released detainees have been covered in other media since then.

...

On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.

In other words, the source isn't denying the information exists, just that he's uncertain that it appeared in the specific document he originally cited.

In any case, such stories have been in circulation as far back as 2002 and are quite consistent with other allegations made by former Gitmo inmates and others about interregators using detainee's faith as a tool.

'In his book, Saar describes a tumultuous atmosphere made more intense than usual because of religious tensions. US personnel, he wrote, routinely tempted detainees to look at pornographic magazines and videos, which Islam forbids. Female interrogators, sometimes dressed provocatively, violated Islamic strictures by rubbing against detainees and even leading one to believe he was being wiped with menstrual blood.

So, is there enough "hard" evidence to convict the U.S. of the crimes against Islam it is accussed of? Maybe not. But there's plenty of circumstancial evidence and, as Abu Ghirab showed to the Islamic world, U.S officialdom is not to be trusted.

In both these cases, it is ultimately the lack of the "scientific method" in people's thinking.

In this sense, I see a major difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, or the Islamic world and the Christian world.

The western world (even Christian fundamentalists) accept the scientific method. That is, they are willing to accept that a world view requires evidence from the real world. In much of the non-western world, this is not the case.

Haven't been paying much attention, have you?

Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community

When it comes to fundamentalisms, only the packaging changes.

Oh and BTW, Warren Kinsella is a f**king moron.

[August1991]

Haven't been paying much attention, have you?

Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community

When it comes to fundamentalisms, only the packaging changes.

And apparently, you don't see beyond the packaging.

Can you imagine Islamic fundamentalists arguing their points as Christian fundamentalists are doing in this case? The scientific method is now part of our way of thinking to the point where even Christian fundamentalists attempt to use it to justify their beliefs.

The examples in this thread come from a different method - it is the method of rank superstition. It is medieval.

[Black Dog]

Can you imagine Islamic fundamentalists arguing their points as Christian fundamentalists are doing in this case? The scientific method is now part of our way of thinking to the point where even Christian fundamentalists attempt to use it to justify their beliefs.

And what, pray tell, brought the scientific method to prominence? The Enlightenment and the assention of scientific inquiry over religious dogma as the path to truth. Religion is inherently antithetical to science and, while today's fundies may dress their beliefs up in pseudoscience, the two are incompatable.

The examples in this thread come from a different method - it is the method of rank superstition. It is medieval

All religious belief is rooted in primitive thinking. The problem with Islam is that it has notyet experienced its enlightenmnet. This is not indicative of some fundamental flaw of the belief system, but of the political and social circumstances it exists in.

[Argus]

Did Newsweek "get it wrong"?  Or do they simply lack sufficient documentation to prove that they "got it right"?

In respect to the notion of honor killings, I'll mention that I recall reading somewhere that in Brazil, "honor killings" of cheating wives or girlfriends are also not uncommon, and given laughable treatment in court of law.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In defence of sexist Brazil, I think you can at least say that it is somewhat less revolting somehow that an enraged husband murders his wife than is a situation where an entire extended family meets and decides to kill an unmarried teenage girl because she was seen walking alone with a boy.

[August1991]

Good point, Argus.

All religious belief is rooted in primitive thinking. The problem with Islam is that it has notyet experienced its enlightenmnet. This is not indicative of some fundamental flaw of the belief system, but of the political and social circumstances it exists in.

Far be it from me to defend western religion (organized or otherwise), but I see a difference between religious people in North America and religious people in some other countries. BD, you apparently don't.

I'll note one difference. North Americans, religious or otherwise, are typically individualists.

[Guest eureka]

They are not individualists at all but conformists. They may be more to be pitied than blamed since they are seeking sanctuary from their fear of individualism and solace for their insecurity in banding together like a school of fish.

[Black Dog]

Far be it from me to defend western religion (organized or otherwise), but I see a difference between religious people in North America and religious people in some other countries. BD, you apparently don't.

*Sigh.* As usual, your ever-so enlightening analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep. You cite differences between religious people in NA and elsewhere as if those differences were soley the product of the religious beliefs themselves and not part of a bigger picture of which religion is but one element.

[Army Guy]

I hope we are not making excuses to justify riots that killed 25 people....The blame clearly lies with those that incited the riot period.....

whether or not the story of the Qoran is true or not, it does not justify the killing of anyone...but there are some that are quick to piont the finger to the south See ,See what you did now...B.S. 25 people died in riots because someone took offense to some Rumours that happen in an interregation...

[Black Dog]

I hope we are not making excuses to justify riots that killed 25 people....The blame clearly lies with those that incited the riot period.....

whether or not the story of the Qoran is true or not, it does not justify the killing of anyone...but there are some that are quick to piont the finger to the south See ,See what you did now...B.S. 25 people died in riots because someone took offense to some Rumours that happen in an interregation...

So who incited the riots? According to the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Newsweek report had nothing to do with it.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center “had placed Quran s on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book.”  By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

It seesm to me that attempts to pin the blame on news week is part of a concentrated effort by the right-wing to cow the so-called liberal media into not reporting any news that could damage the administration. It has nothing to do with how these stories (which hhave been circulating for a long time) damage the credibility of the U.S. aborad. That's already in the shitter. The target of this media crackdown is the domestic population. And, by knuckling under, Newsweek is complicit.