Does Islam need a Country?

[caesar]

Dear pioneer; just who do YOU think is Canada's own. Hmmmm. Our Natives/ First Nations???? Who are your "chosen ones" that represent your view of Canada.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

That, of course, leaves aside the oil factor. I think it is perfectly legitimate of the West to say that our interest in oil is so important we have the right to take action to defend them.

Could anyone say "I have a legitimate interest in your wife because I need to drain my balls'"? Is the taking of something you covet (when there are other ways to be satisfied, though they may be not as gratifying) a form of defence of a 'right'?

[BHS]

Interesting analogy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Thought I'd dredge up this old thread, even though it turned silly. There has recently been some posts and some news stories that are somewhat related...for example...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....=0entry123589

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=123568

I believe the original question was meant to imply: "Can radical Islamists be 'contained' if they have their own country to govern?" Would having such a country existing in the world be a legitimate 'destination' for deportations of those that support radical Islam?

[Toro]

BTW, one nation uniting all Muslims is called the caliphate.

It is the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

Actually, it seems that uniting all muslims under one leader (Caliph), and not a nation, is called a 'caliphate'.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/CALIPH.HTM

http://www.caliphate.co.uk/

http://www.bartelby.net/65/ca/caliphat.html

Which, it seems, they have not solidified, and that there is no one widely accepted 'caliph'. (based on the presumption that no one, including Bin Laden, has succeeded in calling for 'jihad' against anyone in particular, nor accepted any responsibility for any failures in the progression of Islamic unity)

[Rue]

A very interesting question posed and some interesting answers. For me as a Jewish Canadian, even though I support the right for Israel to exist as a Jewish nation and defend its existence, I myself, personally do not choose to live in Israel or any religious state. I believe in seperation of religion from state. W

I see Israel two ways. One as a spiritual expression of Judaism and two as a practical and blatant survival response to world-wide persecution and the last stand for Jews. But no I do not want Palestinians to suffer and innocent civilians to die.

I criticize organized religions of all kinds, Christian, Islam, Judaism for the exact same reasons and it would not be consistent to say I feel a Jewish State is o.k. but a Muslim one is not. Religious states of any kind cause problems and challenges with basic democractic beliefs.

I love being Canadian precisely because I can walk down the street and not be arrested and persecuted by my own police. My ancestors could only dream of something called Canada. My grandparents lived to see it.

To me an ideal state is tolerant of everyone's beliefs but does not favour anyone's beliefs and stays neutral and above religious issues.

I think in this country we have a very real visionary crisis coming up because we did in our generosity simply open the doors to anyone who wanted to come and many who have come do not share a vision of universal tolerance.

To me it is not an issue of accepting new Canadians....its an issue of those new Canadians coming to this country and any Canadian who was born in this country feeling they can be intolerant and feeling they have the right to impose their beliefs on others and institutionalize it. Many new Canadians want to be democratic and come here to escape fundamentalism and intolerance and want to contribute to a peaceful democatic vision so I don't want to lump them with those who come here and want to retain their fundamentalist intolerance and have it both ways-suck up all the benefits Canada has to offer, but spit on on us and hold us in contempt and finance terrorists ovreseas. There are intolerant new Canadians just as there are intolerant Canadians born here. Those intolerant bigots come in all colours, sizes, etc., and yes this country has to seriously consider how it will handle those new Canadians or born Canadians who want to finance and support terrorism.

I reject the use of Sharia Law the same way I would Rabbinical Jewish law or fundamentalist Christian or other religious law. Religion is something you do in your private life but it can not be state imposed. You want to be religious, I will respect you but only if you respect me and do not try impose your beliefs on me and yes we have to draw a line. No you can not impose beliefs in our society that promote polygamy and concepts as to division of property or custody in divorce conflicts that supercede our existing family laws. Yes Canada has the right to draw a line and say we can practice our religions in peace, but there are limits and those limits will define that our right to prayer and worship can not violate and supercede or opt out of our existing criminal and civil laws.

As I Jew I am willing to say openly to any Jew as I would anyone of any other religion that if they choose to follow Rabbinical laws, this can not be state sanctioned just as there is no place for religion in public schools.

Finally, I personally think for the majority of Muslims world-wide their is most certainly a direct war going on with the West because our belief in seperating church from state and our views as to materialism and free enterprise and sexuality, etc., are in direct opposition to theirs. That said I also understand and want to network with those Muslims willing to embrace tolerance and live within our customs but also want to retain their Muslim beliefs as I would with anyone from any other religious group willing to do the same.

That said I think the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, is in fact a fragmented start to the Third World War which will see the West fight The Islamic World and Chinese whether we like it or not. The Muslim world and its fundamentalists now trying to control it are not going away and they are at war with us and as long as we stay addicted to our oil, they will use that addiction to try destroy us. They want us destroyed, make no mistake. This is not a matter of imperialism or a simple historic misunderstanding. This is a war between our way of life and another way of life which believes that we are evil and must be wiped off the planet. It is not about mutual respect. To understand fundamentalist Islamic life you must travel to a Muslim country and experience what it means to not be Muslim in a Muslim country. This is not a simple misunderstanding..its a profound difference in social values.

Whether we like it or not, China because of its need for oil, and its being in direct opposition to democract will of course side with the Islamic fundamentalist world. Russia and India as much as they would like to think they are not aligned have already been reluctanly pulled into the vortex and will have to side with the West. Russia needs the West to sell its oil and water and vast mineral resources, India needs the West to market its economy. As for Israel, whether the West likes it or not, it is a Western State in a cultural war with Eastern values and it will be the lithmus test for whether the Western world has the moral fortitude to defend its values.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well Rue I admire your well thought position. I must ask you what you think our government should do with respect to this current middle east problem? I for one beieve that we should refrain from taking sides at all because it is none of our business, and I think we should limit ourselves to humanitarian efforts and only that when hostilities end. Of course I have no problem with delivering and providing emergency medical aid and food to an offshore position as a nuetral country, but the main point should be our nuetrality.

[Rue]

I personally agree with Harper's approach which is to remain neutral and believe both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to homelands but do completely and without reservation condemn terrorism. I personally do not agree with those who say Harper has affected Canada's neutrality. He has not and has clearly stated he believes Lebanon should be free and independent and Palestinians should have a homeland. What he is come out clearly against is terrorism and I prefer that kind of approach to Chretien's which echoed Jaque Chirac and the French approach to the Middle East. I think Harper has far more credibility with Israel then his predecessors for being so unequivocal about his support against terrorism and so now they will listen and be more likely to take up his suggestions as to resolving this conflict. I personally commend the US, UK, Australia and Canada for being consistent and blasting Hezbollah and terrorists but at the same time clearly stating a solution can only come about with two states.

I personally believe that many Sunni nations particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt although they will never admit it are not too worried about Hezbollah being crushed but they are worried their populations will eventually turn on Israel if this goes on too much longer. Israel runs the risk of losing its unofficial Sunni Muslim support if it doesn't shut this down soon. I personally don't see this going on for more then another week or so.

I believe a comprehensive peace solution in the Middle East requires a peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel AND a completely de-militarized independent Lebanon.

I am not too confident a peace-keeping force can do anything unless it is given a clear mandate to shoot and kill. The problem with that is we will have yet another mission such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq-in otherwords an entrenched war of attrition as coventional armies chase after guerillas who hide behind civilians. I am just not sure it will work. Some people have stated Turkey would be a good choice for troops. Absolute nonsense. Turkey is despised in the Arab world from its days of the Ottoman Empire and France will not send troops because they lost 58 soldiers to the Hezbollah and are not neutral. Canada has no troops to offer and Israelis can not live depending on German soldiers for obvious reasons. So who does this leave in NATO. Norway, Spain and Holland all have credibility with Israel but are theywilling to commit to a long term operation with so many deaths over a protracted period of time as is happening with the Americans and Canadians now? I don't think so and that is why I gave a funny feeling as much as people say one thing, they secretly want Hezbollah crushed. The problem is you can't crush them. They just keep coming back. Unfortunately the only solution is an entrenched wall and security buffer zone thatt hey are not allowed to penetrate. You push them back far enough to neutralize their missiles, then build a very solid security wall, then you have the international force behind that wall and serving as the buffer and you give that force the clear mandate to shoot and kill. You can't be peaceful with terrorists. That is the mistake the UN has made continuously. It also hasn't helped in the past the Italians and Chinese troops have openly aided terrorists.

[theloniusfleabag]

Pardon me for redirecting this thread, but something just occured to me (and I didn't want to start a new thread because this is directly related to the spirit of my intention of starting this particular topic)

as I was reading the news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5376524.stm

The last port in southern Somalia outside the control of the Islamic Courts (UIC) movement has reportedly fallen to the militants.

Now, I believe one of Osama's last statements was a call for 'people of his kind' to gather in Africa, (Sudan, I believe) to 'regroup'. Would the western world be prudent to allow 'the caliphate' to manifest itself somewhere, or should militant Islamic fundamentalists never be allowed to to establish an example for all to judge? Was the Taliban an anomaly, or the newest face of Islam as a whole?