The Peace of Islam

[Yaro]

Fine, but there is a significant minority of Muslims who believe they should rule over all the planet. And there is a significant MAJORITY of Muslims who want Israelis dead or pushed into the sea. So? If you want to equate such sentiments with terrorism the Muslims still win as the greatest terrorists.

You would be very hard pressed to actually prove this.

Learn to read. That way your claim of vastly superior knowledge to everyone else might hold a shred of credibility. I said that the anti-Semitism in the US south is nowhere near as severe than what exsits in Eastern Europe or throughout the Muslim world.

I did read it, and the south is EVERY BIT as bad as any European nation when it comes to anti-Semitism.

You have a very short memory. What you said was Of course someone willing to really go back some time would quickly come to the conclusion that Christianity is easily the most violent of these related religions as no other group can lay claim to terrorism on the level of the crusades alone much less he inquisition. So you were not, as you now claim, saying all religions are violent. You were baldly stating that Christianity has a much more violent history than Islam, which is nonsense.

Which I followed up with by saying that the violence that is layed at the feet of these religions is based not on the nature of those religions but on there capacity for making war and the potential gains. Just like any other excuse for war.

It’s very simple, religion isn't the cause of war, and it’s an excuse a method of invoking the masses that would naturally be against war into action. Not for there own gain but for the gain of whichever group is doing the invoking.

[kimmy]

Delightfully ignorant?

Describing Wahhabism as rooted in western politics seems about as delightfully ignorant as it gets.

So just out of morbid curiosity did you actually read up on the roots of Wahhabism? Or did you just assume this position based on intuition?

OMG, that's amazing, I was going to ask you the same thing!

In fact, yes. I have read enough about the Wahhabi tradition to know that claiming it's rooted in Western politics seems completely illogical. If you wish to convince me otherwise, please proceed.

Surely somebody who isn't delightfully ignorant about the Wahhabis understands that attempting to unlink religion from warfare and politics is false.

This statement makes no sense, please rephrase.

It makes perfect sense. For Wahhabis (and other Islamists) attempting to discuss political objectives without reference to their religious philosophy is nonsensical. For Islamists, religion encompasses and permeates politics. By definition, in fact.

If anything, the mainstream media is scared to death of discussing the religious philosophies of those involved in the violence.

People in the west want to be safe in the illusion that everybody else is just like them: people primarily motivated by comforts; that everything will be a-ok once their temporal needs are taken care of. And I'm sure a great many Muslims, especially those who now reside in the west, are just the same. But clearly that's not true of all.

Actually it is largely true, the fact of the matter is that for the last couple of hundred years we in the west have systematically suppressed every other region on earth. This has been done not out of maliciousness but out of self interest; there are two ways to maintain dominance over another nation, by raising yourself and by pushing them down. We have done both, there are thousands of examples of this to many to discuss here but I can suggest some books if you like.

What are you trying to say? That Islam is just aggressive because the west was aggressive toward them first? If that's what you're saying, what has that got to do with what I said? I repeat: many in the Muslim world are not motivated by creature comforts. Many are very sincere in their religious beliefs and have goals beyond material goods, luxuries, and political notions. We in the west brazenly assume that "they" would come around to our way of thinking if they just had a soft couch, a tasty microwave dinner, and a nice TV to watch Seinfeld reruns... but such goals are far from universal.

-k

[Argus]

Fine, but there is a significant minority of Muslims who believe they should rule over all the planet. And there is a significant MAJORITY of Muslims who want Israelis dead or pushed into the sea. So? If you want to equate such sentiments with terrorism the Muslims still win as the greatest terrorists.

You would be very hard pressed to actually prove this.

Well, I could dump a few tons of newsprint on your head, and toss the polls and surveys taken in the Islamic world on top.

Learn to read. That way your claim of vastly superior knowledge to everyone else might hold a shred of credibility. I said that the anti-Semitism in the US south is nowhere near as severe than what exsits in Eastern Europe or throughout the Muslim world.

I did read it,

Which is why your response was astonishment that I "claimed" there was no anti-semitism in the US south, right?

and the south is EVERY BIT as bad as any European nation when it comes to anti-Semitism.

Go ahead and demonstrate this.

You have a very short memory. What you said was Of course someone willing to really go back some time would quickly come to the conclusion that Christianity is easily the most violent of these related religions as no other group can lay claim to terrorism on the level of the crusades alone much less he inquisition. So you were not, as you now claim, saying all religions are violent. You were baldly stating that Christianity has a much more violent history than Islam, which is nonsense.

Which I followed up with by saying that the violence that is layed at the feet of these religions is based not on the nature of those religions but on there capacity for making war and the potential gains. Just like any other excuse for war.

What you followed it up with is pretty irrelevent to the statement you made that Christianity was more violent than other religions, glossing over the amount of violence commited both past and present by Muslims.

It’s very simple, religion isn't the cause of war, and it’s an excuse a method of invoking the masses that would naturally be against war into action.

How do you know the masses would naturally be against war? You think the Muslim world thinks like you think? If you wandered through the street in the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world, and asked if it was appropriate for thieves to have a hand and foot cut off do you think you'd get a lot of support? As opposed to say Texas or Alabama? Islam has a lot of violent notions about how the world should be run, and the faithful take their cue from that. In any event, whether religion is merely an excuse or not, it certainly appears almost all of the religious violence in the world today is coming from Muslims.

[kimmy]

Delightfully ignorant?

Describing Wahhabism as rooted in western politics seems about as delightfully ignorant as it gets.

So just out of morbid curiosity did you actually read up on the roots of Wahhabism? Or did you just assume this position based on intuition?

OMG, that's amazing, I was going to ask you the same thing!

In fact, yes. I have read enough about the Wahhabi tradition to know that claiming it's rooted in Western politics seems completely illogical. If you wish to convince me otherwise, please proceed.

Yaro? Hollah back, playah! I had been hoping to hear back from you. I assumed from your message that you had information that was going to blow my proverbial socks off, and I'm very interested to hear it.

-k

[Yaro]

Sigh, Wahhabism in the modern use was based on the teachings of a Muhammad ibn Abd, who was educated by his father on the Koran in the 1710's. After having spent many of his early years he under this religious tutelage, and purportedly having memorized the Koran verbatim by the age of 9 he moved to Bashra where he began his higher education.

These are the basic tenants of Wahhabism as taught by Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab. One could call it the origins of modern fundamentalist Islam.

Prohibitions

• No other object for worship than God
  Holy men or women must not be used to win favours from God
  No other name than the names of Allah may enter a prayer
  No smoking of tobacco
  No shaving of beard
  No abusive language
  Rosaries are forbidden
  Mosques must be built without minarets and all forms of ornaments
  

Commandments

• All men must attend public prayer, salat
  Alms, zakat, must be paid from all income
  Butchers slaughtering animals according to halal must have their life styles scrutinized. It is not sufficient that they perform the basic rituals correctly
  

You will however notice that there isn't any hint of violence in the ideology. This is part of the reason why many of not most scholars believe that calling the modern fundamentalist movement wahhabism in relation to acts of violence is not wholly accurate and indeed may not even be remotely accurate.

While in Medina Muhammad ibn Abd took on 2 students, the important one for this discussion is Muhammad Hayat Sindhi. Hayat Sindhi was the source of the first changes in the nature of what we could call the fundamentalists. He is the man who to some extent advocated Jihad in order to maintain the purity of there regions.

It should however be noted that the translation of Jihad has been warped a great deal in the west. The literal translation and the one under which Hayat Sindhi laboured under was probably "holy struggle" which only included military and violent means in the most extreme of circumstances.

It was Hayat Sindhi who was the first to incorporate the western ideals into his methodology. In particular it was contact with a pair of British ambassadors, whose names escape me at the moment that introduced Hayat Sindhi to the politics of the western courts. It was at this point that the modern ideology of wahhabism was born, a combination of Muslim fundamentalism paired with western political pragmatism.

It should be noted at this point that this was also the time of the birth of the alternate mu-whabism (which is incidentally the name they all use for themselves-wahhabist is considered somewhat of an insult) line of thought that resulted in the modern largely isolationist thinking of most mu-wahhabists (they collect in groups of about a thousand and live rather cult like lives cloistered away from the general population).

Hayat Sindhi taught a somewhat more stern form of fundamentalism which was based largely upon the right of the aristocracy of the time to rule regardless of the justification. He had very much a "unto Caesar what is Caesars" attitude, he viewed everything with a great deal of religious fervor, through the eyes of the Koran.

It was also at this point that Hayat Sindhi introduced the notion of religion as the overriding factor in law and government. He had a rather contradictory philosophy that the government had no right to rule, and that the people had no right to descent (which as I am sure you are aware is the central principle of modern wahhabian political thought). You may also by now be seeing some of the influences of British politics of the day and perhaps a certain Italian politician.

It was indeed the philosophy of the British at the time which was that the world was defacto British territory. Diplomats were under strict orders to create provinces that could in no way challenge the British throne. It was considered a matter of time and resources before the British ruled the world in a more direct manner. Incidentally this was also the time when the bankers in Germany, England, and France (all controlled by the same family) started to, in a serious way, influence pedal in third world nations to create the private centralized banks. This was one of the agreements that Hayat Sindhi made with his British contacts, that he would create a stable, submissive population.

Quite frankly though this is far to large a subject for me to cover here, my guess is that you thought by reading wiki or some equal vapid source that you understood the origins of wahhabism, that the idea that some people might actually read a book or bother to ask questions never occurred to you. Regardless of the ideological attacks that have become the nature of this thread, my point is more then made. There is no basis upon which to state in any reasonable way that any of the three related religions can claim to be any more peaceful then the others.

[Argus]

Quite frankly though this is far to large a subject for me to cover here, my guess is that you thought by reading wiki or some equal vapid source that you understood the origins of wahhabism, that the idea that some people might actually read a book or bother to ask questions never occurred to you. Regardless of the ideological attacks that have become the nature of this thread, my point is more then made.

Uhm, no. Not even partially.

For a fellow who talks a lot about how magnificently knowledgeable he is on every possible subject under the sun you are astonishingly incapable of posting a convincing argument. I believe your original statement was that Whabism was rooted in Western politics. Despite a very long post you have done nothing but infer that one of the students of the founder of Wahabism was perhaps influenced in some way by a pair of unnamed British ambassadors.

And you regard this as an overwhelming argument, do you?

There is no basis upon which to state in any reasonable way that any of the three related religions can claim to be any more peaceful then the others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christianity and Judasim are enormously more peaceful than Islam. Also less violent. Also less barbaric and brutal. And enormously more tolerant.

And you know what? I don't give a crap about the early influences behind one sect of Islam or the other. The Islam of today is racist, sexist, homophobic, bigotted and murderously intolerent by judged on the scale of Western ideals.

Pew Research

[kimmy]

Sigh

Well that was riveting. You cut'n'pasted pages off some web-page to support the point that Wahabbism is rooted in strict, literalist interpretation of Islam, then add a few sentences about a student having contact with shadowy european bankers, and somehow this proves your view that the movement is "rooted in Western politics"?

sigh

-k

[BHS]

If there's anything more irritating than a "roll eyes" smiley at the end of a post, it's the smug self-congratulation inferred by a "sigh" stated at the beginning of a post indicating that the member regards those who disagree with him as childishly stupid. Especially when the "sigh" is followed by a load of ignorant partisan tripe.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Judaism isn't all that tolerant of other religions. For example, they don't even like to use things made by 'the unholy goyim', and Christians are derided as 'idolworshippers'. The quote below is taken from Arutz Sheva, in the "Ask the Rabbi" column.

Question:

Your answer about the plastic teakettle that needs to be toveled is puzzling to me, since by toveling it, the electric unit can be harmed. I have several electic appliances that I understood couldn’t be toveled because of that reason.

Answer:

I did it personally to a new kettle I bought last Friday, I Toveled it in the Mikveh, put it in the sun for a few hours and used it all through Shabbat without concern. A professional electrician told me it’s no problem because it’s a simple electric system, and not gentle circuitry vulnerable to water.

Anyway, if you are still concerned there are two more options:

I. Give it to a Jewish electrician to disassemble and rebuild, then the utensil will be considered Jewish made, or

II. Give it as a present to a Goy and ask him to lend it to you for use, and of course you continue using it eternally. (The Goy doesn’t have to understand exactly why this is done).

Rabbi Ro’i Margalit

It is also forbidden for a Jew to kill another Jew, (or for one to charge another interest on a loan) but it is OK to kill a goyim for transgressions against Israel. Even Pollard is considered a 'captive' because he is being held by the 'goyim'.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Judaism isn't all that tolerant of other religions. For example, they don't even like to use things made by 'the unholy goyim', and Christians are derided as 'idolworshippers'. The quote below is taken from Arutz Sheva, in the "Ask the Rabbi" column.

There is more than sufficient sputtering lunacy in Jewish religious texts and laws to turn them all into hateful maniacs. Likewise there is sufficient crap in the Bible to have Christians murdering themselves and everyone else about them all day long in the name of God. But I believe most Jews, like Christians, have learned to take such things with more than a few grains of salt, and are generally more secular in their orientation than Muslims (clearly with some exceptions). It isn't that Islam contains more vicious, hateful, murderous crap than the others. It's just that Muslims tend to take their vicious, hateful, murderous crap much more seriously.

For example, like the Koran, the Bible explicitly states in several places that adulterers should be put to death. Do you know any Christian state where there is even real pressure or lobbying to have this enacted? Even in the most Christian of states, even in the US deep south, has there ever been such a punishment? It isn't even a crime anwhere I'm aware of. We just don't take such things seriously.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

But I believe most Jews, like Christians, have learned to take such things with more than a few grains of salt, and are generally more secular in their orientation than Muslims (clearly with some exceptions). It isn't that Islam contains more vicious, hateful, murderous crap than the others. It's just that Muslims tend to take their vicious, hateful, murderous crap much more seriously.

I would say that most Muslims take it ALL much more seriously, including the violent parts. So what is to be done? Take their religion away if they can't play nicely with it? I say it is high time all religions be called to account.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

But I believe most Jews, like Christians, have learned to take such things with more than a few grains of salt, and are generally more secular in their orientation than Muslims (clearly with some exceptions). It isn't that Islam contains more vicious, hateful, murderous crap than the others. It's just that Muslims tend to take their vicious, hateful, murderous crap much more seriously.

I would say that most Muslims take it ALL much more seriously, including the violent parts. So what is to be done? Take their religion away if they can't play nicely with it? I say it is high time all religions be called to account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that people need to stop believing that aside from a very few, very rare fanatics the Muslim world is much like ours, with people who think, act, and believe much as we do, with much the same priorities. I think people need to understand there is very real dislike for us in the Muslim world, and it isn't all because we support Israel or due to our colonial past. For example, India holds no great resentment towards Westerners or British in particular. I don't hold them up as any great light of democratic values or any great friend of the West, but India proceeds among its own business with confidence (sometimes arrogance) and while experiencing religious violence, rarely, if ever sees that violence directed outward. Contrast that with Pakistan, which, btw, used to be part of the same country, and the violent religious fundamentalism which seems to be growing there, all of it directed against the West. How can you, in looking at both countries. blame Pakistan's religious violence on Western colonialsm and mistreatment?

Pakistan never had any oil to be exploited. It was never treated any worse by the west than any other third world country, and in some cases a lot better. But massive numbers of their people hate us, and it is a religious hatred, not based on logic or cause. It doesn't matter what we do. And it doesn't matter what we say. They will continue to hate us.

I would think that, at a minimum, the West needs to start looking at ways to discourage travel to our countries from theirs, needs to actively discourage clerics and holy men from that part of the world from travelling and preaching here, needs to prevent money coming from Muslim nations into ours to influence local Muslim mosques and schools, and needs to start examining the newspapers, magazines and satellite signals flowing across the border into Canada for messages hostile to our society and values. And I think, we need to make it fairly clear to Muslims in these lands that if their belief and value systems are hostile to ours they should strongly consider relocating.