Islam - some observations : Interesting Blog Entry

Islam - some observations : Interesting Blog Entry......

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military
components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies
agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the
other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
C hina -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby
securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allowthemto rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of
all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Musl im 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf th e birth rates of Christians, Hindus,Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Ian's blog http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36/2010/11/13/entry-1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

5 Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam

A conservative commentator recently made headlines by claiming 10 percent of all of the world's Muslims are terrorists. An amazing claim, considering that equals 150 million terrorists and if each were to pull off an attack killing just 40 people, they could exterminate all non-Muslim life on earth.

Either they're not all that dedicated to terrorism, or the claim is utter insanity.

#5.
If You're a Muslim Woman, You Have to Wear the Veil

...So for instance, in France they have about 3 million Muslim women. French police decided to figure out how many of them wore burqas and/or niqabs and found the number to be ... 367.

Not 367,000, but 367, a number so small that from a statistical point of view, it's barely enough to register as a margin of error. As for the rest of Europe, the numbers are even more disastrous for the burqa business (for instance, Belgium has 500,000 Muslims, a couple dozen wear the burqa).

Yes, there are Middle Eastern countries where the veils are required by law (namely Iran and Saudi Arabia) and combined those countries have less than 5 percent of the world's Muslims. There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them.


Hey, speaking of which, try this number on for size: Of the five most populous Muslim-majority nations, four of them have elected female heads of state.

So there's a fantastic chance that in 2012, Sarah Palin will be campaigning for an achievement that Muslim ladies have already accomplished.

#4.
Our Founding Fathers Would Never Have Tolerated This Muslim Nonsense!

Even if they were staunch Christians (or deists, whatever), plenty of the Founding Fathers had a healthy admiration for the Muslim faith. Thomas Jefferson, for example, taught himself Arabic using his own copy of the Quran and hosted the first White House Iftar during Ramadan.


Jefferson believed in celebrating the deliciousness of all world religions.

John Adams hailed the Islamic prophet Muhammad as one of the great "inquirers after truth." Benjamin Rush, who was so Christian he wanted a Bible in every school, also said he would rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammad "inculcated upon our youth" than see them grow deprived "of a system of religious principles." Benjamin Franklin once declared: "Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service." Even George fucking Washington personally welcomed Muslims to come work for him at Mount Vernon.

So, why all this Founding Father/Muslim love? Probably because Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah of Morocco was the first world figure to recognize the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain in 1777. Another reason was that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to distinguish between terrorists and everybody else on the whole damn planet, as demonstrated in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797. It was in this agreement that the U.S. declared: "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen [Moslems]."

#3.
"Muslim" Equals "Arab"

Only about 20 percent of the entire world's Muslim population is Arab or North African. For comparison, about 22 percent of the global Christian population is African, yet when somebody says "Christian," you don't immediately picture a dude from Africa. Equating "Muslim" with "Arab" makes just as much sense.

While we in the West have been conditioned to associate Islam with the Middle East, a whopping 61.9 percent of all Muslims -- aka a supermajority -- don't live in the Middle East at all; most Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region. Indonesia alone is home to more than 200 million Muslims, and the Indian subcontinent has roughly a half-billion Muslims.

It works the other way, too. For example, if you think being Arab guarantees you being Muslim these days, well, we are sorry to disappoint. As much as 10 percent of the world's Arab population is Christian (that's more than 14 million people). That means there are 1 million more Arab Christians than, oh, we don't know ... the world's entire Jewish population..

#2.
Western Cultures Are Far More Humane Than the Bloodthirsty Muslims

Even before the whole terrorism thing, Islam had a reputation in the West for violence. Part of it has to do with how abruptly Islam was all up in everyone's face. For instance, while Hinduism took about 1,000 years to spread through India, and Christianity took about 400 years to go from persecuted cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, Islam went from one guy's epiphany to the dominant political and religious force in the Middle East and North Africa in about 100 years.

So a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the religion spread like holy wildfire for one reason: the sword. The next logical leap from this viewpoint is that as a people, Muslims must be violent and barbaric conquerors. Even before 9/11, you saw this portrayal in popular culture all the time:

But actually...

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

* No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants;
* No wanton killing of livestock or other animals
* No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and
* No destruction of wells.


In short, Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies. During the fucking Dark Ages. And they did.

But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, right? Maybe that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," in the words of one expert.


Plus, they built all sorts of nifty buildings.

So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like oversized hacky sacks, their Muslim counterparts had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies.


#1.
Islam Is Stuck in the Dark Ages

In the same way that not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists, plenty of modern Muslims see room for interpretation in the Quran. In fact, 45 percent of American Muslims in one poll said they see evolution as "the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth," which isn't so shabby, considering only 24 percent of evangelical Christians believed the same. The percentage of Muslims embracing the scientific explanation for the origin of life was about the same as Americans as a whole (48 percent).
And historically, they have a hell of a track record. Science and math as we know it wouldn't even exist without Islam. The Islamic Golden Age caused a revolution in virtually every field of human thought, during which they fucking invented algebra -- and advanced everything from geography and exploration to the arts, architecture, philosophy, urban development, medicine and health.

The Muslims actually came pretty damn close to sharing all this brilliance with the truly ass-backward kingdoms of Christian Europe, since the Islamic caliphates blanketed every country they conquered with schools, libraries, public works and the most comprehensive system of social welfare on the planet. In fact, the case has been made that if the caliphates succeeded in conquering all of Europe an Italian Renaissance would have been unnecessary.

​

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1891...bly-believe-about-islam_p2.html#ixzz19PQ7LvNW

Now that is an interesting blog post!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really. It's mostly strawmen and misdirection.

Did you have any counters for rcscwc?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At some point, you just start laughing at that thesis

The bigoted thesis is clear: It's about Islam.

Couldn't possibly be about history. Couldn't possibly be about economics. Couldn't possibly be the many things social sciences have observed and documented over the decades. It all comes down to one thing: Islam.

After all, if they weren't Muslims, they would happily live under the conditions of poverty and oppression they protest.

Right?

I mean, that's what the Christians would do. Right?

Or Americans?

Or anyone else other than Muslims?

It can only be Islam.

The problem, Geoff, is that there isn't much for counterpoint when the thesis is so glaringly deficient.

Search for the word Iraq in the topic post.

Can't possibly be the American-led war in Iraq, right? The only explanation is that they're Muslims.

I mean, come on dude. I know we have many disagreements, but surely you can see through this paper-thin excuse for logic.

 

Because we say so

So criticism of Islam must be bigoted. OK.

Not like the criticism of anything else. That's all good. I mean, we prattle on about subtlety, circumstance and inference, but really when it comes down to it, anything negative we say about Islam - or more accurately, its juxtaposition with politics - must be bigoted. There is just no other answer possible.

Sure sure: it's just like that religious law in all those poor places everywhere that gets people killed. That's all about poverty too. Those laws where everyone seeming remotely like an indigenous-culture type (oooh, those Allah-damned Copts) must be viciously suppressed. And those billions of petrodollars used to spew hatred out of the poor in Saudi Arabia - that's about poverty too. Or economics. Or the "many things" social science has, uh, found out over the years. But not xenophobia and social hatred. That's not one of the many things social science has observed and documented over the decades. It's never happened before, and it never will (again).

Oh sure, Tiassa. Those conditions of poverty and oppression that conservative redneck Islamists protest by killing their neighbours, from Indonesia to the gold-leaf toilets of Saudi Arabia to - hell, London. All impoverished and oppressed, right the way through private university. It's all ooverty. Or oppression. Or the expression of religious or cultural difference, anywhere in the Islamic world. Shit. The only reason for shooting up Iraqi Christian churches, or Copts, or Nigerian Christians, or food lines in Pakistan, is...poverty. It's a poverty sufficient to buy guns and explosives - I paraphrase Twain by opining that I've never known a jihadi too poor not to have an AK47; and some of them are so poor they own rockets and IEDs, too - so at least they're probably not going hungry.

But above all else, it's not a movement designed to force increasing Islamicization, or the suppression of other cultures. It's not. It's not. It's not. Because we say so.

 

Well, wait: the OP starts with a very clear, sweeping statement that "Islam" encompasses all of these things (state, economy, military, society, etc.).

I don't see where the OP says anything about "protest" of "conditions of poverty and oppression." There's a single reference to "agitating for religious privileges," which I read as a reference to efforts to carve out Shariah mini-states under the banner of multi-culturalism.

It's fair enough to note that such programs are typical of proselytizing religions, as well as just about any imperialistic, totalizing ideology. But I don't see where the OP denies that, as such, interested specifically in Islam though it may be.

The only explanation for what? I'm getting the impression that the subject you're addressing is not the same one as the one the OP is addressing.

I'm not seeing a problem with "logic" here, to first order. The OP describes the strategy and tactics of a totalizing religio-political movement. A movement which really does exist, in an organized, political form.

The problem is inference: the OP is too creduluous as to the likelihood and scale of such a program succeeding, identifying it with Islam as a whole, and likewise fails to extend the same criticism to all of the other totalizing ideologies out there. The contest between which will do a lot to determine their relative success, just as it always has. Which suggests that the author is himself a partisan for a competing totalizing ideology - Hindu Nationalism, in case anyone is unfamiliar with rcscwc's post history.

It's ugly stuff, sure, but potent and so worth countering seriously. It won't do to write off political Islamism as benign liberation theology any more than it will do to demonize Islam as a monolithic Axis of Evil.

 

Dragging down the world

Leap + Density = Plunge

Let us know when you hit the bottom.

Blaming common effects of poverty, exploitation, cruelty, and suffering—e.g., sociopolitical unrest, crime, &c.—on a specific ideology in order to denigrate that ideology is a bit myopic, Geoff.

The Islamic question, in this context, is simply one of how people respond to those challenges.

Poverty, poor working conditions, poor educational standards, public corruption, international intrigues ... anyone living under such circumstances will behave in a manner we "civilized" people find distasteful.

In the early American twentieth century, for instance, people were concerned about crime and alcohol among Native Americans. In this case, people decided things like poverty and education had nthing to do with the behavior. Thus, the problem could only be that they were "injuns".

Centuries of anti-Semitism have cast Jews as money-grubbing freaks. Never mind that they innovated their way out of not being allowed to own property. It couldn't be sociopolitical. Rather, the bigots assail them for being Jews.

Homophobia found a new face in the 1980s amid the HIV crisis. Reagan's indifference toward HIV in the gay community, the promiscuity of gays, and all of the problems that came with it could only be because these were homosexuals. It couldn't possibly have to do with a subculture being forced underground.

People still denigrate women because they are women. It can't be inequality or injustice. It's just that they're women, and therefore a horde of bitches.

On and on and on. Blacks, Mexicans, Catholics, Asians ... it's part of the America-Go-Round, for certain.

A good deal of it is. The first act of any tyrant—not just Muslim tyrants—is to clear out the educated and empowered opposition. Not only does this destroy education and social communication, it also removes moderating influences that would take the edge off extremist opposition.

So they're behind the times. That much anyone can acknowledge. But is the reason for that simply that they are Muslims, or is there something more to it? By the topic post, there's nothing more to it. Therefore, the argument is that Muslims are fundamentally corrupted, which is, really, an irresponsible, myopic, dysfunctional thesis.

Actually, that's about political conservatism. The House of Saud has wielded extraordniary influence in the region for centuries. A royal family of between 7,000-25,000 people struggling to maintain power by controlling information, behavior, and attitude. They're exploiting the tools available to them to hang onto power, as conservatives will do.

Nobody doubts the xenophobia and social hatred. However, the idiotically simple argument that it is because they are Muslims is beyond simply dubious. It's stupid. The only real outcome we can expect from such a perspective is a perpetuation of the divisions that lead to xenophobia and social hatred.

Then again, perhaps that's what some people want. For the Saud, it keeps them in power. For armchair geniuses, it justifies their hatred.

All pretty convenient, I think. Both sides would rather stay at it. Best enemies forever.

Imagine for a moment that the Ottoman Empire had survived. Imagine that it invaded England for its oppression of Catholics in Ireland. And imagine that the Ottomans ginned up the controversy, reduced England to rubble, and then blamed the poverty and chaos on the fact that the English were Christians.

Would wearing a suit and going to work in a posh office as an upscale colonist have meant a Brit had no cause for complaint?

What the hell are billionaire Americans doing running around, stirring up the working classes, in order to get a better deal for the rich? We go to war, lay off workers, kick people out of their homes, and deny them medical care in order that the rich can be just a little bit more wealthy. We lie, cheat, and steal in order to make this possible. That's a lot of blood on a lot of hands. Should we regard all "Americans" the way you regard Muslims?

That is, should we regard the majority of Americans the way you regard the majority of peaceful Muslims? Would you accept that?

Frankly, I don't think you would.

But, then again, it's your standard, so I suppose you get to decide if one-way application is fair or not.

That outburst demonstrates an incredible ignorance of the situation you spend so many words ranting about.

No money? But, hey, there's a school to send your kid to. In this case, it happens to be run by a jihadist who will feed, arm, and train your child to fight.

Yes, let us pretend the Muslims all run down to Ahmed's Firearms Store & Range to get their AK's because, well, I don't know, it's Tuesday and they're Muslims.

Learn some history, Geoff. Really, if you're such a genius, then clearly the evidence is there for you to make your underlying case. Show me the Muslim who says, "Hmmm ... I'm hungry, and have a few coins. You know what? Fuck it. I'm a Muslim, so I'm going to buy a gun instead!"

Clearly, there is a movement within the Muslim world that seeks Islamicization. So they're still carrying on according to standards that were acceptable in the early part of the twentieth century. But by the outlook of the topic post, and your own insistent need to blame Muslims for being Muslim, you've reduced your options to approximately two: The more complex, and therefore undesirable, one is to settle iniquity and injustice—this process takes a couple generations at least. The more attractive one is to just shrug, say, "Hey, they're Muslims." Just like in the '90s they were faggots, in the '80s they were bitches, in the '70s they were drug-fueled hippie wannabes, in the '60s they were commies, in the '50s they were black ... all the way back to Maryland, when the problem was that they were Catholics.

This sort of simple-minded bigotry actually slows human progress. People like you, Geoff, are a detriment to the human species. That is, our chances of extinction rise dramatically if we follow the path you're on; and our progress toward peace and perpetuity is greatly slowed.

But, hey, that's what you want, isn't it Geoff. So what label should we blame it on? Or should we just skip the labels, shrug at the blatant ignorance, and just say, "Hey, it's Geoff."

That a movement exists within a larger corpus does not define the larger body. Otherwise, all those people who complain about the evil, imperialist Americans would be rather quite justified.

Of course, the reason we don't stop the bloodthirsty imperialism is, frankly, that we're too civilized to do anything about it.

But, hey, I'm an American, just like all the other bloodthirsty American imperialist vampires trying to destroy the world for profit.

When the sublimated sadist calls the projecting neurotic crazy, yes, the people who study such things do afford themselves a grimly ironic smile.

In the end, Geoff, one of the reasons your hatred meets such resistance is that reasonable people are waiting for your ilk to come back to reality. Many people would like to solve the problems facing all of our human neighbors. But then there are people like you, who wish to perpetuate all our divisions, who we must accommodate and respect in order to maintain a pretense of being "fair".

Take your one-way rocket ride to Kicksville, for all I care. Just stop trying to drag everyone else along in to the cesspit of your homogenized Dystopia.

 

That rather depends on how said movement relates to the larger body, what role it plays in controlling/influencing its relations (internal and external), etc., no?

For example, I'm sure there's no shortage of good, high-minded people in, say, Saudi Arabia, with progressive ideas about governance, relations between state and sect, human rights, etc. But they - literally - don't get a vote. Instead, an alliance of reactionary monarchs and religious fundamentalists gets to call the shots. To object to such requires neither the conflation of such with "All Muslims" or "All Saudis" or whatever, nor hyperbole about the prospects for such elsewhere.

And so, however ugly the OP may be, I can't agree that it's fundamentally ill-posed to be address Islamist movements whose very goal is exactly to mobilize far-flung communities of Muslim emmigrants/ex-pats into subversive "colonies," irrespective of whatever legitimate issues said movement may exploit to consolodate political support. I contend that there is a malign, imperialistic strain in Islamist politics, and that it's not all just about legitimate reaction to oppression or poverty or whatever. Wherever there's a basis for political control, there's nefarious actors looking to sieze it for their own ends.

The criticism should again be of selectivity (why single the Muslim iteration of this universal trend out?) and hyperbole (the whole "Enemy at the Gate" presentation). It's clearly intended for ugly ends but, to that, it is very much a co-option of legitimate concerns - just as Islamists seek to capitalize on legitimate concerns amongst various Muslim communities for their ugly ends. It won't do to write off either the subversion or the legitimate concerns, on either side. To pick sides like that is to reinforce the dialectic that the nefarious powers depend upon.

Rather, a prerequisite of transcending such fear-based, divisive dynamics must be the aknowledgement of the legitimacy of the fear of The Other. That's the only basis upon which such can be confronted and made subject to reason, empathy and introspection.

They aren't?

I'd always thought that the problem with that line of rhetoric is that is was incomplete - and almost always a diversion away from productive reasoning and into recreational hatred - than justification as such.

 

A complex problem

Fair enough; that a movement exists within a larger corpus does not necessarily define the larger body.

I just don't think the OP reflects the proposition you put before us. Take a look at Iraq, for instance; according to the source, Iraq is in the dire straits it is because it's 97% Muslim. That proposition is laughable because it implies the fact of the American invasion has nothing to do with "daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide". It can't possibly be the war; it's because they're Muslims. Palestine? Lebanon? Gaza? Again, the problems there are because people are Muslims; the troubles in the region couldn't possibly have anything to do with a war drawn out over sixty years, originally drawn up by colonial powers along religious lines.

The difference as I see it is between addressing Islamist movements rationally and simply denigrating Muslims. The former is necessary for peace, prosperity, and the human endeavor in general. The latter is sport posing as intellectualism.

If there is a malign strain of imperialism in an outcome, the problem is the imperialism. Delving deeper, into the relationship between the "disease", as such, and the outlook it poisons, the one route that will lead us nowhere is to simply say the sickness itself is the pathogen.

Is AIDS homosexuality? Is bigotry Christianity? Is stupidity conservatism? Any one of these outlooks has challenges facing it. Each one will respond according to circumstance. But we cannot answer any of those questions affirmatively. Neither is violence, extremism, intimidation, ethnic cleansing, &c., Muslim.

If we transpose the symptom and the patient, then curing the disease means killing the patient. Once we start down that road, the only real solution is genocide. That is, if the problem is that "they're Muslims", the only solution is to get rid of Muslims.

If, on the other hand, the problem is that prominent Islamic ideology is infected with earthbound lusts leading it to extremism even from a position of privilege, the solution is identifying those distractions, determining their cause, and building new paths for people to tread.

It's not so much that it is fundamentally ill-posed to address Islamic movements whose very goal is exactly to mobilize far-flung communities of Muslims. Rather, it's the problem of starting from a point intended to demand extermination of Muslims. And that's the underlying premise of the topic post reference: The problem is that they're Muslims.

I am of the opinion that it is problematic to expect that other people should have to farm out the legitimate concerns of others. If the other cannot be bothered to express the legitimate concerns, what credit should we give them on that count?

One can acknowledge the fear of the monster under the bed while showing it's not true. However, we are not children, and Leon Uris was nine in 1933.

But what is the underlying fear? To me, it recalls the fear of the Nazis. I'm sorry, but the idea that the Nazis could come across the ocean and rule the United States of America was complete bullshit. Not only was it logistically problematic, but the fear presumed that the ferociously-armed, jingoistic American people would simply bow down and accept Nazi rule.

Is the fear that we'll all be forced to become Muslims? If so, I'd really like to know just how that's going to work. And then I might ask people to compare projected timelines; if we race to world Islamization or the concretization of oligarchy in the United States, which is going to come first? Or, perhaps people will be satisfied with such dystopian freedom: to own, to earn, to get rich, and to keep your fucking mouth shut. Sure, you might have to sell your children along the way, but in the end they finally become black ink on the ledger.

Is the fear that Muslims will kill us all? Again, I'd like to know how that's going to work. Are they going to nuke us into extinction and wreck the planet for their holy utopia? Will they sneak into our houses one by one, slit our infidel throats, and post it on YouTube?

What, exactly, is the fear? As near as I can tell from the content of the opening post, the fear is that there are too damn many Muslims, and they're breeding too fast.

In the end, I don't disagree with the principles you suggest; rather, I just don't see anything in the OP or anti-Islamic responses to attach them to.

Well, it depends on one's perspective. Namely, what I'm after is that one cannot apply a moral or ethical assertion only one way.

You and I both know there are plenty of Americans who are absolutely sick of the way our government and corporations treat the world. We can no more hold those Muslim neighbors of ours who disdain violence and supremacy accountable for the extremists than a Honduran laborer can hold you accountable for the shitty wage Debra Waller pays the people who make my Jockey brand underwear.

Some might say we're a nation of greedy, imperialist pigs. At a certain rhetorical valence, sure, that's fair. Just like saying Islam is a faith of nearly primitive extremism and violence.

Many people will apply such rhetoric only one way. We used to see this all the time here at Sciforums. Someone would say something mean about a Muslim, someone else (often our neighbor S.A.M.) would point out American shortcomings as a juxtaposition, and a whole bunch of people would freak out about how one shouldn't be allowed to be so anti-American.

As a slight digression, although an example of the problem I have with the topic post, we might consider the word, "orthopraxic". It doesn't come up much, and doesn't seem to have made an appearance at Sciforums for about three years. But it is an important word in figuring identity politics.

Christianity is largely orthodox. Islam is largely orthopraxic. That is, there is a doctrinal, scriptural basis that identifies Christianity. Islam is much more defined by behavior, e.g., practice the Five Pillars, and you're a Muslim.

As a result, while Christians often say of an Eric Rudolph or Scott Roeder, "He's not really Christian; that's not what the Bible means," the Muslim has a harder time with similar disqualifications. We hear that Islam is a religion of peace; we hear the counterpoint that it is a violent, corrupt regime.

What we won't hear in such debates as the OP proposes is any substantial discussion of the implications of orthopraxy, or any reckoning with Islamic unity against infidels. These two, conjoined issues are essential considerations in quelling the flames of disunion in the Islamic world.

It is almost unimaginable that Americans would regard their own society in any practical sense according to the same simplicity. We would have torn ourselves apart decades ago.

Furthermore, many Westerners overlook that part of what has eroded our Christian faith over the years has been a matter of convenience. By the time of my youth, educational experts were begging parents to spend at least half an hour a day worth of "quality time" with their kids. In my daughter's lifetime, that number has been cut to fifteen. In the 1980s, parents worked a lot, and that lack of supervision allowed all manner of transformations within people, customs, and perspectives. These days, we're so busy chasing after money that voters are too harried to know what's in their local Voter Guide. Many Christians are so caught up in the daily grind that they forget what their Bibles say.

Do we really think Muslims, given the same opportunities, won't follow a similar route?

They're human beings. We see this in some of the rich and powerful sons who go abroad for school or business and act ... well, like arrogant rich people.

Certain wounds have festered; certain slivers remain unextracted. Finding the malign strain is the key to healing the injuries of history. Simply leaving the argument at, "They're Muslims, and therefore beyond redemption," is bloodthirsty supremacism.

The problem of that incompleteness often shows itself when one applies the principle to more than one form. When accusing another, it's all good and fine for many. But when turned on themselves, they object.

I don't think this sort of numerical argument, relying at its core on an asserted inherent corruption of a whole people, would stand if it was aimed at Americans, Jews, British, Christians, Asians ... &c. It stands out as an aberration when it suddenly wins validity because it supports someone else's bigotry.

We've been down this road many times before in American history, and never has the inherent corruption argument won out. But, hey, they're Muslims, so maybe this time it will. That is, if we take the topic post according to what it says.

 

Finding the ass under the hat

No need.

You'll see me coming.

Interesting. Which of those is Saudi Arabia - which churns this nonsense out for consumption - suffering from? Which cruelty and suffering prompted the massacre of Armenians in Turkey? Bangladeshis? Copts? And so on.

Certainly - but rarely, Tiassa, to the standards of a repressive interpretation of religious ideology. There are exceptions to the hypothesis, Tiassa. Look them up.

Squat + Density = Plunger required

You see the difference? The tiny difference? You are equating a population (Native Americans) repressed by an outsider majority (all other Americans) with the purported repression of entire nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) who are in fact repressing their own minorities (Copts), et al. This is sort of monstrous.

There are so many ways to respond. We could start with the fact that conservative Islamic thought is right in line with the above. Perhaps this is a line of thought that should be introduced in Wahhabi mosques. But now you're pontificating that this is unassailable, unique among the pantheon of assholery. Well, fuck that. Conservative, expansionist Islamism is not homosexuals, nor women, nor Jews. It is itself; an identity. First they came for the redneck Islamists, and I did not speak out since I was not a redneck Islamist isn't going to cut it here.

Tiassa, it goes without saying that imperialism is a fucking bad thing. No one is - or should be, at least - incognisant of that fact. But blaming everything on poverty without the tiniest impulse to address the problem with an ideology with a more complex relationship with the capitalist world is stupid, flat.

Sorry: who the fuck is making that argument? You're the one spreading the tent as wide as the horizon. All Muslims aren't what this is about. If you'd like to address the economic issues behind all global distropianism: great. Sign me up. But - you know, while we're waiting for true Communism in our time, which I'm certain is right around the corner - maybe we should slap a band-aid on the bleeding patches before we lose all connection with reality. If Jimmy Swaggart somehow reared an army of AK-47-wielding lunatics from Spokane, I don't think a rational discussion of the economic inequalities inherent in his movement would help. Nor would defending him as some kind of representative of all Christians. In short, assholes will still be assholes.

I sort of ignored the rest since it was about as relevant, and real, as a gnat. I caught a few ad hominems: good for you, touching back on familiar ground.

Well, if you're just going to group all Muslims under the very same banner of assholes that read their religion in the most conservative way possible so as to prevent all real discussion, then you need a re-education on homogenization.

 

Do you EVER pay attention, Geoff?

The topic post you're defending.

 

O really?

Where above do I defend it?

What form - if you absolutely have to reach for the conclusion you're trying to make here - does such a defense take? What is my central thesis? You could ask, of course, if you don't know. There are some hints in my post above. Think on it.

 

Tiassa, have anything to dispute the stark facts outlined in OP? A pattern has been mapped there and is true too.

 

Not only SAM, but all other apologetics are skirting the OP. Too uncomfortable about it.

Islam is a religion of peace when there are no non muslims in sight.

 

Your supremacism, your genocide

#3 above:

"Did you have any counters for rcscwc?"​

Or #5 above:

"So criticism of Islam must be bigoted. OK.

Not like the criticism of anything else. That's all good. I mean, we prattle on about subtlety, circumstance and inference, but really when it comes down to it, anything negative we say about Islam - or more accurately, its juxtaposition with politics - must be bigoted. There is just no other answer possible."​

Well, you seem to think S.A.M. owes a bunch of bigotry some sort of specific response. I suppose that's one way to debate an issue: Just waste our time exploring any stupid thing someone says.

Or, for some, there are, in fact, some arguments that just don't make the cut. For instance, one in which the primary argument is a matter of numbers and accepting the presupposition that the problem in a community is the fact that the community exists at all.

Maybe you should try writing one, sometime.

Well, let's work with what we have. In #3, you presume that there is some rational counterpoint to the irrational topic post. In #5, you reject those considerations. And in #10 above, you continue that rejection.

Your central thesis, insofar as you have expressed one at all, comes in two components: First, that Muslims are inherently bad; second, that history doesn't have shit to do with today.

Both are faulty, to say the least. Rather than confront the central discord, you dig yourself in deeper and deeper, repeating the error over and over again. To wit:

"You see the difference? The tiny difference? You are equating a population (Native Americans) repressed by an outsider majority (all other Americans) with the purported repression of entire nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) who are in fact repressing their own minorities (Copts), et al. This is sort of monstrous."​

You're trying to represent a complex historical development in the simplest, most idiotic terms possible. And as a result, you're just burrowing further down in the muck.

Native Americans were repressive as well; there are plenty who will remind us of that if they feel the need. Social and political repression are symptomatic of human societies. They are obstacles to our species' future that we must overcome.

It is as if everyone playing the hand has an ace hidden in their sleeve, but you're only worried about the one guy across from you because he's a Muslim.

"First they came for the redneck Islamists, and I did not speak out since I was not a redneck Islamist isn't going to cut it here."​

And yet you get upset when Muslims stand up against persecution. That is, they object to being singled out and treated differently because they're Muslims; they must, then, be redneck Islamists.

Your supremacism, Geoff. Your genocide. I'm happy to leave you to your fantasies, but if they become part of the public discourse, I might actually have a thing or two to say about them.

 

I just read the OP and I didn't read anything about Islam. Am I missing something

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Was he trying to argue "Islamic" Civilization (or the Current state of "Islamic" World) is the same thing as Islam? A class on Islamic Civilization even in a Western University should be enough to prove such an argument wrong.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Would the Islamic civilization be very different without the religion of Islam? I think it would be.

 

Actually I'm not skirting the issue, I see no reason to defend pointless nonsense. Lets take your argument wrt India, since we are both Indians. Islam came to India in the lifetime of the prophet, the second oldest masjid in the world is in Kerala, built in the 7th century AD

Plus, all the Turkic, Pashtun, Persian and Mongol Muslims have left their mark on Indian soil from the Red Fort to Falak Numah Palace.

And yet, 80% of the country is not Muslim. After 1400 years. So, are the Indians so resistant to Islam - maybe an attachment to the caste system that cannot be overcome by a religion that preaches all mankind is a single nation - or are the Muslims so inefficient at proselytising?

Definitely. How different do you think the world would be without Christians going to Europe, the Americas, Australia, Asia and Africa? One of the major fears of westerners who fear Islam is that they are afraid Muslims will behave just like them. However, they cannot provide any evidence to support these fears, so one wonders where they acquire these groundless suppositions that just like them, Muslims will wipe out whatever stands in the way of their supposed global dominance ambitions. Assuming they ever get to the point where they can even agree with each other on it.

 

(chortle!)

What stark facts are those?

 

So tell me O GeoffP, white Christian of European origin. Where do YOU live and what is the status of minorities therein? Surely you don't live in a non-white non-Christian country, or speak a language not of native origin or follow a religion not of native origin? Lets hear what you practise as a follower of the rights of the native Copts in Egypt and their oppression by native Egyptians of other faiths. What, for example, is the faith of the native Americans in your vicinity?

There is nothing more absurd than an Englishman who moves to the Americas where genocide has wiped out the native peoples and their culture and who supports a nation of militaristic ambition with occupying armies in other sovereign lands to take up the cudgels on behalf of a Christian minority in a state whose dictator of 27 years has been set up and funded and armed by the same country adopted by same Englishman

Are you afraid that "Muslims" will learn from Americans how to treat minorities and sovereign states? Do you fear dictators in your country set up by imperialists across the oceans. Are you afraid that NATO-like Muslim armies will be bringing "democracy" of their ideological mode to you by military force and drones in far off remote communities? Do you fear the Americanisation of the Muslim world?