Burn a Qu'ran Day.

Jack Weber · August 25, 2010

I would disagree on that considering the huge differences between many of the sects of Islam.

It's true that the different sects in Islam disagree with each other,But so do the different sects within Christianity.There's a huge fundemental difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism.The difference being that Christians tend not to kill each other because the questions of faith have been asked and answered...

The fact is that the more fundementalist sects within Islam are the ones seemingly doing the talking for the entire faith.Until there's a pushback within Islam from th moderate sects who have had enough of the murderous thuggery,folks like the Wahabites are going to be driving the train...

August 25, 2010

The fact is that the more fundementalist sects within Islam are the ones seemingly doing the talking for the entire faith.Until there's a pushback within Islam from th moderate sects who have had enough of the murderous thuggery,folks like the Wahabites are going to be driving the train...

There has been but when they don't people either don't listen or react like they are with the Imam at park 51.

Shady · August 25, 2010

There has been but when they don't people either don't listen or react like they are with the Imam at park 51.

The Imam of Park 51 has said some pretty radical stuff. A lot of it's just beginning to come out now. If he's a so-called moderate within Islam, God help us. :blink:

August 25, 2010

The Imam of Park 51 has said some pretty radical stuff. A lot of it's just beginning to come out now. If he's a so-called moderate within Islam, God help us.

If the stuff he says is radical than the Huffington post is radical, and so is Australia the UK and Norway.

Smallc · August 25, 2010

The Imam of Park 51 has said some pretty radical stuff.

No he hasn't. You really have to watch less Hannity. You parrot him almost word for word.

ToadBrother · August 25, 2010

That is precisely the difference.The Protestant Reformation ultimately had a geat calming effect on the way individuals deal with matters of faith.Once the Roman Catholic church was no longer able to force itself on everyone in Europe,and no longer claim it was the only way to Christ,faith became more individualistic.

The Reformation was hardly calming. It lead to the first general European war; the Thirty Years War, to countless acts large and small by Catholics and Protestants against each other. The Protestants were often hardly any better than the Catholics, and our own monarchy still bears one of the most enduring aspects; the Act of Settlement, which is still a part of Canada's constitution, forbidding the throne to Catholics.

If the Reformation ultimately had any effect, it was that the horrors of the Thirty Years War and all the surrounding atrocities inspired the Enlightenment thinkers, some of which also happened to reject the Judeao-Christian notions of god and religion, to began pondering notions of natural rights, of liberties, of a man's religion being his own business. In other words, the birth of secularism. But secularism still has a lot of enemies in both Catholic and Protestant circles, people who view, rightly enough, as the diminishing of Christianity.

The problem with Islam is,it has never gone through a reformation that openly defied the edicts of the absolutists.I suspect there are alot of Muslims who are ashamed at the actions of some of the more fundimentalist sects of that faith,but really have very few avenues to speak what's on their mind.

I think the issues with Islamic societies are incredibly complex, but if you go back to the roots of modern Fundamentalism in Arabian Wahabism, what you see is a reactionary movement; initially battling what were viewed as the evils of the Ottomans, but spreading throughout a wide part of the Muslim world. People tend to concentrate on the religious aspects, but I view the endemic socio-political problems in many Muslim states to be as big, if not bigger contributor.

Sir Bandelot · August 25, 2010

It's true that the different sects in Islam disagree with each other,But so do the different sects within Christianity.There's a huge fundemental difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism.The difference being that Christians tend not to kill each other because the questions of faith have been asked and answered...

The fact is that the more fundementalist sects within Islam are the ones seemingly doing the talking for the entire faith.Until there's a pushback within Islam from th moderate sects who have had enough of the murderous thuggery,folks like the Wahabites are going to be driving the train...

Some interesting ideas there, I think it needs to be explored more. Why did the christian churches undergo reformation? It was because of corruption. The pope was corrupt. Example, just look at the Borgias. Incest, murders, orgies in the Vatican! And the problem still exists to this day. We hear about Irish priests involved with the IRA in planning terrorist bombings. Innocent people killed. The coverup was handled by the bishop, and must have been known by people at the highest levels of the church.

Just thought I'd throw that in, as an example of what we're dealing with here.

Now is it just possible that this level of corruption, never happened to this extent in Islam? Surely they've murdered people. But did their actions go completely against their own God? Or is it just simply that their religion, Islam, sanctions acts of violence in the name of "justice" for Allah?

Food for thought, chew for the bigots. Let there be weeping, and gnashing of teeth, oh my!

dre · August 25, 2010

It's true that the different sects in Islam disagree with each other,But so do the different sects within Christianity.There's a huge fundemental difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism.The difference being that Christians tend not to kill each other because the questions of faith have been asked and answered...

The fact is that the more fundementalist sects within Islam are the ones seemingly doing the talking for the entire faith.Until there's a pushback within Islam from th moderate sects who have had enough of the murderous thuggery,folks like the Wahabites are going to be driving the train...

The fact is that the more fundementalist sects within Islam are the ones seemingly doing the talking for the entire faith.Until there's a pushback within Islam from th moderate sects who have had enough of the murderous thuggery

That pushback is already happening. And how do you judge whos "seemingly" doing the talking? From what you see in the western media? Thats because violence makes headlines, not calls for peace.

The fact is that violent extremists in the muslim world are on the run. They are hunted in almost every muslim country, and condemned by scholars, imams, and shayks all over the world. People like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Suhaib Webb, Imam Zaid Shakir, Shaykh Yassir Qadhi, Dr. Maher Hathout, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, Imam Mohamed Magid, Dr. Ihsan Bagby, and Dr. Jamal Badawi.

Follow some of the links here...

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Westerners dont have a CLUE whats going on the muslim world. Muslims are the primary VICTIMS of Islamic extremism, and theyve already done more to deal with it than a million FAKE GWOTS combined.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dre

Bonam · August 25, 2010

That pushback is already happening. And how do you judge whos "seemingly" doing the talking? From what you see in the western media? Thats because violence makes headlines, not calls for peace.

The fact is that violent extremists in the muslim world are on the run. They are hunted in almost every muslim country, and condemned by scholars, imams, and shayks all over the world.

Really? Extremists and extremist practices run the show in Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the most populous middle eastern Muslim nations. Islamism is also a powerful force in many others.

Westerners dont have a CLUE whats going on the muslim world. Muslims are the primary VICTIMS of Islamic extremism, and theyve already done more to deal with it than a million FAKE GWOTS combined.

They are definitely the primary victims, and I have no doubt that some have tried to "deal with it". However, their efforts thus far have not been particularly successful. A mark of success would be if societies start becoming less theocratic and more secular. Let me know when this starts happening in the Muslim world. Right now we are seeing precisely the opposite trend: Islamist/theocratic forces are gaining power in previously more secularly governed Muslim nations, such as Turkey and Lebanon.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Bonam

dre · August 25, 2010

Really? Extremists and extremist practices run the show in Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the most populous middle eastern Muslim nations. Islamism is also a powerful force in many others.

Theres a difference between fundamentalists and violent extremists / terrorists / jihadists. Is there a lot of suicide bombings in Iran and Saudi arabia? Jihadists are hunted in both those places. BinLaden was unceremoniously KICKED OUT of Saudi Arabia for his anti western views.

However, their efforts thus far have not been particularly successful. A mark of success would be if societies start becoming less theocratic and more secular. Let me know when this starts happening in the Muslim world.

Theyre efforts have been a LOT more successfull than ours. Like I said... global jihad which after 911 was believed to be this massive global movement has completely fizzled and died. Its basically just a few nuts now in isolated locations. The entire muslim world has condemned it.

And they dont need to become secular to fight terrorism and renounce violence against civilians. They just need to fight terrorism and renounce violence against civilians.

Anyhow... the whole narrative "muslims arent speaking out against extremists" is one of the stupidest things Iv ever heard. (Im not claiming you said that personally). What do westerners know about that? You think CNN is gonna broadcast the hundreds of religious groups and thousands of religious leaders that have condemned violent extremists?

Westerners know which celebrities got boob jobs recently, and who Paris Hilton banged last thursday.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dre

Bonam · August 25, 2010

Theres a difference between fundamentalists and violent extremists / terrorists / jihadists.

I agree. We should oppose both, however. While fundamentalists who limit their repression to their own countries and their own people, are better (for us) than jihadists who try to export it world wide, I find both disagreeable. Additionally, it is societies that embrace fundamentalism, like Saudi Arabia, where many people grow up with the mindset that lets them become radicalized and turn into full fledged terrorists/jihadists.

Bonam · August 25, 2010

Anyhow... the whole narrative "muslims arent speaking out against extremists" is one of the stupidest things Iv ever heard. (Im not claiming you said that personally). What do westerners know about that? You think CNN is gonna broadcast the hundreds of religious groups and thousands of religious leaders that have condemned violent extremists?

Actually such condemnations, when they happen, do make the news, at least some of them do. I've certainly read plenty of articles on mainstream websites, such as CNN, which quote various Muslim leaders that oppose fundamentalism/extremism. Others could well claim the media bias is the opposite of what you claim it is: there are numerous extremist statements made by prominent Islamic religious leaders that are not reported on in the MSM. Reality is, there just isn't nearly enough space or interest to publish every single statement made by prominent Muslims, whether extremist or moderate.

Westerners know which celebrities got boob jobs recently, and who Paris Hilton banged last thursday.

Sorry, couldn't tell you.

In general, I don't buy your whole "westerners are clueless idiots" line of reasoning. Certainly, the level of knowledge and informedness could always use improvement, but most westerners today are better educated than they have been in the past, have access to a wider wealth of information, and are more knowledgeable than people from many other parts of the world where education and information access is much more limited.

dre · August 25, 2010

I agree. We should oppose both, however. While fundamentalists who limit their repression to their own countries and their own people, are better (for us) than jihadists who try to export it world wide, I find both disagreeable. Additionally, it is societies that embrace fundamentalism, like Saudi Arabia, where many people grow up with the mindset that lets them become radicalized and turn into full fledged terrorists/jihadists.

I dont like religious fundamentalism any more than you do. Im especially not fond of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia.

But there has been a sea change that started in about 2006. There had been a series of terrorist attacks in SA some against westerners but many against saudis as well. And whats happened there has been interesting.

In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

Theres similar things happening in the rest of the muslim world as well.

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

And those voices HAVE been effective. There has been a wide swing in public opinion.

The data on public opinion in the Muslim world are now overwhelming. London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges has analyzed polls from dozens of Muslim countries over the past few years. He notes that in a range of places—Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh—there have been substantial declines in the number of people who say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable.

The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where only 12 percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as "often or sometimes justified" (down from 57 percent in 2005). In Indonesia, 85 percent of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "rarely/never justified" (in 2002, by contrast, only 70 percent opposed such attacks). In Pakistan, that figure is 90 percent, up from 43 percent in 2002. Gerges points out that, by comparison, only 46 percent of Americans say that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

The percentage of muslims that believe violence against civilians is acceptable is lower than the percentage of AMERICANS.

Global jihadism has gone from what was believed to be a major political movement and a threat to governments in muslim countries to a joke.

dre · August 25, 2010

Actually such condemnations, when they happen, do make the news, at least some of them do. I've certainly read plenty of articles on mainstream websites, such as CNN, which quote various Muslim leaders that oppose fundamentalism/extremism. Others could well claim the media bias is the opposite of what you claim it is: there are numerous extremist statements made by prominent Islamic religious leaders that are not reported on in the MSM. Reality is, there just isn't nearly enough space or interest to publish every single statement made by prominent Muslims, whether extremist or moderate.

Sorry, couldn't tell you.

In general, I don't buy your whole "westerners are clueless idiots" line of reasoning. Certainly, the level of knowledge and informedness could always use improvement, but most westerners today are better educated than they have been in the past, have access to a wider wealth of information, and are more knowledgeable than people from many other parts of the world where education and information access is much more limited.

Sorry, couldn't tell you.
In general, I don't buy your whole "westerners are clueless idiots" line of reasoning. Certainly, the level of knowledge and informedness could always use improvement, but most westerners today are better educated than they have been in the past, have access to a wider wealth of information, and are more knowledgeable than people from many other parts of the world where education and information access is much more limited.

Id like to think youre right but its hard not to think that when I here that tired narrative played out over and over again. "Moderate muslims arent speaking out!" :lol: :blink:

Its complete and utter horse shit.

Its just the nature of news. A guy doesnt get on the news for helping an old lady across the street. He gets on the news if he rapes her and kills her.

Back to Saudi Arabia for a second...

"The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."

It was General Davis Patraeus that said that...

Over the course of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a series of such terrorist attacks, some directed against foreigners, but others at the heart of the Saudi regime—the Ministry of the Interior and compounds within the oil industry. The monarchy recognized that it had spawned dark forces that were now endangering its very existence. In 2005 a man of wisdom and moderation, King Abdullah, formally ascended to the throne and inaugurated a large-scale political and intellectual effort aimed at discrediting the ideology of jihadism. Mullahs were ordered to denounce suicide bombings, and violence more generally. Education was pried out of the hands of the clerics. Terrorists and terror suspects were "rehabilitated" through extensive programs of education, job training, and counseling. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said to me, "The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."

You honestly think your average westerner is aware of this kind of stuff? If they are then why has that bullshit narrative lasted so long?

Edited August 25, 2010 by dre

ToadBrother · August 25, 2010

Some interesting ideas there, I think it needs to be explored more. Why did the christian churches undergo reformation? It was because of corruption. The pope was corrupt. Example, just look at the Borgias. Incest, murders, orgies in the Vatican! And the problem still exists to this day. We hear about Irish priests involved with the IRA in planning terrorist bombings. Innocent people killed. The coverup was handled by the bishop, and must have been known by people at the highest levels of the church.

The Reformation happened, whereas other reformist or schismatic movements didn't, because the northern and western European princes saw an opportunity to throw off the shackles of Roman influence on their political systems. The Reformation coincides quite nicely with the fading of Feudalism, the birth of strong, centralized monarchs and of the modern state. But againn I must reiterate here that after the Reformation, the Protestants were every bit as capable of doing bad deeds. The blood of tens of thousands of people are on the hands of both branches of Christianity. But you need to read up on the Counter-Reformation, which modernized the Catholic Church as well.

As to priests and the IRA, come on, that was going on on both sides. Guys like Ian Paisley were, at the very least, offering considerable comfort to Protestant paramilitaries. Both sides have spent centuries pointing the finger at each other, when they should have been looking in the mirror instead, and the game goes on with the recent poaching of High Anglicans by the Catholic Church in England.

ToadBrother · August 25, 2010

Really? Extremists and extremist practices run the show in Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the most populous middle eastern Muslim nations. Islamism is also a powerful force in many others.

That's somewhat inaccurate. They certainly are fundamentalists, but they are not Jihadists or Islamists, or whatever we're calling the bomb-under-the-jacket types this week. It seems to be the tendency of a lot of people to lump a lot of different things together and then declare countries like Saudi Arabia extremist states. I'm not saying the Saudis haven't done some rather rotten things, mainly in the form of exporting their religious nuts, but they did that in large part to stop them from interfering with Saudi rule. Remember guys like bin Laden hate the House of Saud almost as much as they hate the Americans.

Shady · August 25, 2010

Thomas Friedman made a great point today. He said that if he had $100 million dollars to build a inter-faith/intra-faith religious center, he'd built it in Egypt, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. Because that's where it's needed most. Amen to that! (pun intended)

dre · August 25, 2010

I dont like religious fundamentalism any more than you do. Im especially not fond of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia.

But there has been a sea change that started in about 2006. There had been a series of terrorist attacks in SA some against westerners but many against saudis as well. And whats happened there has been interesting.

Theres similar things happening in the rest of the muslim world as well.

And those voices HAVE been effective. There has been a wide swing in public opinion.

The percentage of muslims that believe violence against civilians is acceptable is lower than the percentage of AMERICANS.

Global jihadism has gone from what was believed to be a major political movement and a threat to governments in muslim countries to a joke.

Its also worth mentioning that moderate muslims are getting no help from the West at all when it comes to deradicalizing muslims in the middle east. Part of what these people need to do is show that the narrative which says the West is their enemy is a fraud. But the idiotic fake global war on terrorism, is actually validating that narrative, and radicalizing MORE people. There is NOTHING that helps Jihadists more than Western nations trashing middle eastern countries and killing hundreds of thousands of muslims.

So those that seek to deradicalize mulsim populations are not only up against extremist elements of Islam, they are up against the West as well.

Shady · August 25, 2010

Its also worth mentioning that moderate muslims are getting no help from the West at all when it comes to deradicalizing muslims in the middle east. Part of what these people need to do is show that the narrative which says the West is their enemy is a fraud. But the idiotic fake global war on terrorism, is actually validating that narrative, and radicalizing MORE people. There is NOTHING that helps Jihadists more than Western nations trashing middle eastern countries and killing hundreds of thousands of muslims.

So those that seek to deradicalize mulsim populations are not only up against extremist elements of Islam, they are up against the West as well.

That nonsense just gives people excuses to commit terrorist acts. And besides, why wasn't any de-radicalizing going on before there ever was a war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

GostHacked · August 25, 2010

That nonsense just gives people excuses to commit terrorist acts. And besides, why wasn't any de-radicalizing going on before there ever was a war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Saddam had things in check. And no one has been able to pacify Afghanistan to this day.

DogOnPorch · August 25, 2010

Saddam had things in check. And no one has been able to pacify Afghanistan to this day.

Saddam keeping things in check.

Shady · August 25, 2010

Saddam keeping things in check.

Good catch. Saddam had things in check by torture, and indiscriminate murder of any dissenting opinion. Once again GostHacked sinks to a new low. :rolleyes:

Jack Weber · August 25, 2010

Good catch. Saddam had things in check by torture, and indiscriminate murder of any dissenting opinion. Once again GostHacked sinks to a new low.

So did :

Anastazio Samoza

Fulgencio Batista

The Duvaliers

Alfredo Stroessner

Mobuto Sese Seko

Maximilliano Hernandez

Robert D'Aubuisson

General Augusto Pinochet

I could go with at least 20 more...

Interesting...All US prop ups...Most lived out their lives without having to deal with the US ousting them from power...All were as brutal,if not more brutal than Saddam...

Shady · August 25, 2010

Interesting...All US prop ups

I think you're mistaking ambivalence with support.

All were as brutal,if not more brutal than Saddam...

That just isn't true.

Jack Weber · August 25, 2010

I think you're mistaking ambivalence with support.

That just isn't true.

Nope,not ambivalence...Most of those governments were funded by the US through the World Anti-Communist League,which was directly funded by Washington...

Are you trying to tell everyone that Saddam Hussein,a US prop up,was more brutal than General Augusto Pinochet? General Francisco Franco?Oliviera Salazar?Mobuto Sese Seko?Trujillo in the Dominican Republic?The Duvaliers,father and son?Maximilliano Hernandez and Robert D'Abuisson in El Salvador?Ferdinand Marcos in the Phillipines?

Hernadez alone,with the assitance of the US State Department and,just in case things got out of hand the US Marine Corps,Took power in a bloody coup.Then set about claiming everyone who did'nt agree with him a Communist,including almost the enitre indigenous population,and had then executed...

We're talking 10's of thousands of people murdered under the watchful eye of Washington and its aparatchik...El Salvador vs IRAQ just in square miles is'nt even comparable.I could go about how Hernandez was an avowed Fascist and occultist,but suffice to say,Saddam was no more brutal than that...