 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
The claim that Islam is a naturally violent relegion is a massive one, whihc calls for serious evidence. I must say that it has certainly failed to materialize ever here in Poly.
I had the great ability, while in college, to work at one of the biggest academic research libs. in the world. Many times, I would go read the back issues of Time and newsweek, both serties going back to their foundations, in the 1920's. Reading the accounts of WW2 were particvularly interesting. One good thing about Newsmagazines as a source of history is that while the author is full of existing prejudices, they are free of the future prejudices authors of history books have.
Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.
Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.
IN the 1960's and early 70's, Asia was the cusp. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia each. Half a million suspected communists were killed by Suharto in the mid 60's.
IN the early 70's and 1980's, it was Latin America. Thousands in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua. Tens of thousands in Colombia, Peru, El Salvador. 150,000 in Guatemala.
From the 60's to today, violenece in Southern Africa: Sierra Leon, Liberia, Angola, Ethiopia, Angola, the bloodbaths of Central Africa. (Very few Muslims)
From the early 80's to today, violenece accross the muslim world were Islam itself is an issue. The deadliest of all these conflicts is Sudan, in Africa, with 2.5 million dead. The next bloodiest, Algeria, were well over 100,000 died in the late 90's. After a decade Kashmir may approach 100,000. All the other conflcits are way behind. So even if Islam is violent, as far as body count goes, it has been small. All acts of terrorism against the West and Israel in the last 50 years may have killed 7000 people, tops. That's one day of violence in all christian Rwanda back in 1994, in fact,less.
Has Islam been hijacked? How does one Hijack a relegion of 1 billion peolple? I find the question silly. 99.9% of Muslims have never been part fo a violent Islamist organization. 1/10% is of course still 1 million people, but that hardly tells you about the life of the 999,999 Million others.
What about the question of why?
Well, look back at 1972. Who rules the Islamist world? Authoritarian regimes, for the most part secularizing. Some with the US, others with the USSR. And accross the board, they failed. They failed to significantly improve the lives of their citizens. These failures lead to revolution, to upheaval. Some regimes, like Pakistan, turned to islam to woo the crowd. Others, like Egypt and Syria, were strong enough to crush any opposition. Others, like the Shah, fell. And as resentment and revoltuion came, the superpowers stepped in to influence the game. One of the tools the US and conservative allies used was to foster radical islam, for Islamists hate Communists. The great infamous system of Madrasas finaced by Saudi Arabia? They came in the late 70's and 80's as the Saudis and the US sought to destroy socialists and communists.
The failure of the authoritarian and secularizing regimes, wether they were right or left, left many to look for a solutuion. And there was a new way, the way of modern Political islam. It had been building its foundations, primarilly in Egypt, since the 1920's. But it was too weak to take on the right backed by the US and UK, or socialists, backed by the USSR. But when both groups failed to imporve things, their chance came.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cagliostro
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Clearly, these acts are condemned by all Christian church leaders.
|
Right - but they contradict large parts of the bible by doing so - the problem is that both, the bible and quran are such contradictory books, so you can't interpret them without contradicting certain parts of them - some examples:
[W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord . . . (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). “[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”(John 3:36).
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deuteronomy13:6-16).
“And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both males, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men who were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go you forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city” (Ezekiel 9:5-7).
That raises the question: Are anti-violent christian leaders heretics by disregarding the bible  ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
We all know the contrast between the old and the new Testament. As to the portions if the new testament you quote, the vengence is to damn the unbeliever to hell. There is no injunction to kill the unbelieve unless he submits and begins to pay the $$$$.
I hear people say that there is something in the Koran which preachs tolerance of other beliefs. Where are the quotes.
And yes, I have read the Koran - but only once. I found it almost unreadable. Just a long series of injunctions, praise Allah and slay the unbeliever until he submits or converts. |
The point is that nowhere in the Bible does it make clear not to follow the Old Testament, the idea of reading the New Testament literally and the Old Testament figuratively is a relatively new and liberal idea. Jesus was a teacher of the Old Testament, he was a rabbi.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I wish people would simply stop defending those who act violently in the name of Islam by pointing out that there are some random examples of the same in Christianity. Clearly, these acts are condemned by all Christian church leaders.
The same is not true though with Islamic leaders who seem to praise violence by calling suicide bombers and pilots martyrs. |
Who is defending those who act violently here?!? People are defending a faith which, like any other, can be interpreted in different lights. The point is that unholy acts have been defended and even provoked or carried out by Christian Church leaders throughout history, that christianity like any other religion is vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse by leaders who are as subject to human fallibility and sin as their congregations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The claim that Islam is a naturally violent relegion is a massive one, whihc calls for serious evidence. I must say that it has certainly failed to materialize ever here in Poly.
I had the great ability, while in college, to work at one of the biggest academic research libs. in the world. Many times, I would go read the back issues of Time and newsweek, both serties going back to their foundations, in the 1920's. Reading the accounts of WW2 were particvularly interesting. One good thing about Newsmagazines as a source of history is that while the author is full of existing prejudices, they are free of the future prejudices authors of history books have.
Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.
Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.
IN the 1960's and early 70's, Asia was the cusp. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia each. Half a million suspected communists were killed by Suharto in the mid 60's.
IN the early 70's and 1980's, it was Latin America. Thousands in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua. Tens of thousands in Colombia, Peru, El Salvador. 150,000 in Guatemala.
From the 60's to today, violenece in Southern Africa: Sierra Leon, Liberia, Angola, Ethiopia, Angola, the bloodbaths of Central Africa. (Very few Muslims)
From the early 80's to today, violenece accross the muslim world were Islam itself is an issue. The deadliest of all these conflicts is Sudan, in Africa, with 2.5 million dead. The next bloodiest, Algeria, were well over 100,000 died in the late 90's. After a decade Kashmir may approach 100,000. All the other conflcits are way behind. So even if Islam is violent, as far as body count goes, it has been small. All acts of terrorism against the West and Israel in the last 50 years may have killed 7000 people, tops. That's one day of violence in all christian Rwanda back in 1994, in fact,less.
Has Islam been hijacked? How does one Hijack a relegion of 1 billion peolple? I find the question silly. 99.9% of Muslims have never been part fo a violent Islamist organization. 1/10% is of course still 1 million people, but that hardly tells you about the life of the 999,999 Million others.
What about the question of why?
Well, look back at 1972. Who rules the Islamist world? Authoritarian regimes, for the most part secularizing. Some with the US, others with the USSR. And accross the board, they failed. They failed to significantly improve the lives of their citizens. These failures lead to revolution, to upheaval. Some regimes, like Pakistan, turned to islam to woo the crowd. Others, like Egypt and Syria, were strong enough to crush any opposition. Others, like the Shah, fell. And as resentment and revoltuion came, the superpowers stepped in to influence the game. One of the tools the US and conservative allies used was to foster radical islam, for Islamists hate Communists. The great infamous system of Madrasas finaced by Saudi Arabia? They came in the late 70's and 80's as the Saudis and the US sought to destroy socialists and communists.
The failure of the authoritarian and secularizing regimes, wether they were right or left, left many to look for a solutuion. And there was a new way, the way of modern Political islam. It had been building its foundations, primarilly in Egypt, since the 1920's. But it was too weak to take on the right backed by the US and UK, or socialists, backed by the USSR. But when both groups failed to imporve things, their chance came. |
Just to repeat GePap
Has Islam been hijacked? How does one Hijack a religion of 1 billion peolple? I find the question silly. 99.9% of Muslims have never been part fo a violent Islamist organization. 1/10% is of course still 1 million people, but that hardly tells you about the life of the 999,999 Million others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
I wish people would simply stop defending those who act violently in the name of Islam by pointing out that there are some random examples of the same in Christianity. Clearly, these acts are condemned by all Christian church leaders. |
you have to understand that christianity is older than islam, and that the (western) christian world is more developed than the muslim world.
If you strictly look at the basis for both religions, the Bible and the Koran, you'll find similar calls for violence.
The problem is people. Christians in the past have done horrendous things, in a time the Muslims were far more moderate. (inquisition, crusades, etc). Only (relatively) recently, the two switched sides.
But in basis, neither religion can claim the moral high ground. The Islam isn't more messed up than Christianity, just the people (for various reasons).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
Ít is a lie that 99,9% of the (peaceful) Muslims are just hijacked by 0,1% of freaks.
Right, probably most wouldn't go as far as bombing Bali, New York etc. but that doesn't mean that Islam is somehow peaceful. Look at the UN human rights papers - most of which have not been signed by islamic states. Morocco, which isn't a fundamentalist state, nor a "secular state" (which is a concept contrary to strict muslim belief, whether liberal or freaky) considers the change of religion to be a problem for state security - apostasy is high treason!!!!!! Moreover, only Christians and Jews are legally accepted as religious groups and have any rights as such. In Turkey, believers consider the secular state to be anti-islamic - and that's not a recent development.
Granted, the majority muslims aren't violent nor a threat, but the reason of them not being intolerant towards others - or generally peaceful - is rarely their islamic faith. If there is a rise of secular states (which is quite the reverse, look at Tunesia) it's not because secular states are so compatible with Islam, but because people don't care so much about following every dot of the Quran and the sunna.
That, again, doesn't mean that a muslim has to be violent in order to be a good muslim or fight the infidels, that's stupid and most people can't be fanaticized to do so, when there's no direct threat (and there surely are possibilities to interpret the Quran in a manner that violence may only be used as defense [note: how one can define a defensive war look at Dubbya's rhetorics...]).
In times with bad situations, when feeling oppressed, the Islam offers tons of reasons for fanatizing believers, and that's also what Muhammad often tried to do with his words. Many of those words were spoken to his warriors, before they went to battle.
I can't hear it anymore that Islam is hijacked, nor any comparisons with christianity in order to "relativate" the brutality of Islam. That's a similar question like: "Who's worse: Hitler or Stalin?" That doesn't lead anywhere.
Fact is that ALL major interpretations of Islam (there's basically 4 schools of sunnitic law [Hanafites, Malikites, Shafiites and Hanbalites] and the Shiites] have in one way or the other interpreted the Islam in a way that allows killing of non-believers, especially apostates, severe discrimination of those who are being "tolerated" before court and social stigmatization of them etc., limitation of their cult. Many even harmless reasons could lead to execution or exiliation of nonbelievers in the Sharia (which is not only the source of law of fundamentlists, but also the basis of the "Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights, which doesn't deserve the name IMHO) - there's even tons of such evidence for the "tolerant" spanish and ottoman period.
When there were times of more liberties and good coexistance it was generally the kadis and imams etc. who opposed this lax politics.
How can people say that the common interpretation of Islam by the vast majority of Islamic thinkers is "perverting" Islam? Surely other interpretations can be thought of, but that doesn't mean that those "violent" or intolerant views which are in the majority are not islamic...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Question: If the vast majority of Muslims agree with OBL - at least to the extent of his complaints, what does this mean? Even many in this forum seem to agree with OBL on some of them. Has the religion been hijacked or does OBL simply represent the Muslim world view?
Of course, the leaders of the Muslim world who do not install a theocracy are against OBL because he has declared them too to be the enemy. |
Well this could be the "Osama e-mail thread", but surely OBL hijacked Muslim World view, as Muslims as a group are running out of options to make a better living for themselves, so they could be tempted to listen to such nutter (and I am sure many would say for him he is crazy a few decades/years ago) as they are running out of solutions.
In a similar way there are Africans calling for unity in the continent as they see themselves as a big group with similar problems, however they haven't indentified US and the West as the "enemy" that should be destroyed. In Africa just the problems and perhaps the racial group are unifying factors, in the Muslim world the third and defining factor of unity is the religion. That can be seen this way and OBL sees it that way. But without similar problems for the region there would be no Muslim unity, no need to indentify as a group.
What OBL represents is an extremist muslim word view, and in the same way as Nacizm and Fascizm appealed to Eurpoeans in a despearte 1930's situation so does it appeal to many more Muslims in the situation that they find themselves today, as opposed to some other time in history, there surely have been many nutters over there before but there was no fertile ground to grow this destructive philosophy. The fertile ground was created post WWII with western policies over the Middle East, and now we have those peole trying to get rid of western political/economic/cultural influence anyway they can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Has the religion been hijacked or does OBL simply represent the Muslim world view? |
Neither. OBL's interpretation of Islam is not contradicting the Quran (at least not too much), but that doesn't mean it's the only way to interpret the Islam. Major religions are defined by the fact that countless "authentic" interpretations can be made, so is the Islam.-In this case it's really that the vast majority of Muslims doesn't share OBL's interpretation, but they share parts of it.
quote:
Of course, the leaders of the Muslim world who do not install a theocracy are against OBL because he has declared them too to be the enemy. |
Every state which doesn't base its law in the Sharia is, according to most interpretations, not islamic. The Islam generally knows no difference of religion and politics (they call this union din-wa-dawla). Considering the fact that those states used to be Islamic some day before, they're apostatic and their rulers are enemies of the faith. If they happen to ally with non-believers against muslims, like the Saud's do), they're even worse.
Of course, the Saud's would argue that the conflict with Iraq is not about faith, but for Osama EVERYTHING is about faith...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Your 4 schools of Islamic thought are further divided by fundamentalist and liberal divisions within them. Strict enforcement of any outdated texts, NT, OT or Koran is going to have some harsh repercussions on the world. The fact that we have for the most part come to terms with our fundamentalists is more due to higher levels of education and scientific research which has largely debunked the schools of religious thought that call for literal translations of religious text and there use in all areas of human thought. The arabic world has had these ideas forced upon it by a foreign and often hostile culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
Wernazuma:
Since Islam has no hierarchy, no struture, I find it impossible to say that as a relegion it can be hijacked, any more than Protestanism can be. As interpretation is left to each individual, for anyone to claim that as a whole the relegion has been hijcked, they must in some way think they 'know' the beliefs of 1 billion plus people. That is impossible. As for the Q'uran: it was finished by 1000 AD. Is Islam's history more, less, or about, as violent as that of all the other major relegions? Are the followers of Islam more or violent than others? This may be a difficualt question to answer, but as far as I know, the biggest recorded bloodlettings in the last 1000 years have not been committed By Muslims in the name of Islam, while one, the extermination of the Native Americans, was done in large part in the name of Christianity. So perhaps the interpreters of the Q'uran were more mellow than many of the interpreters of The BIble.
NOw, personally, i do think that it is easier to mix Islam and politics, the real source of this violence, than it is to mix politics and Christianity, and that a combination of that and universality makes radical islam inherently more expnsionistic than radical forms of other faiths.
I see 5 mayor relegions (I add judaism for tis connections, not the number of followers):
Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Of these, Islam, Buddhism and Christianity are universalistic, they see themselves as an answer to everyone, no matter the tribe or caste.
Hindusim and Judaism are particularistic: their lessons apply not to all of humanity but only a few.
Hinduism, judaism are the most political: there are links, at least in the original versions of these faiths (Judaism ahs undergone a de-politicizing over the last 1900 years of no power, but I see this reverting somewhat) between the lessons of the religion and how the state should be operated.
Buddhism, and Christinaity make separations between political organizations and the faith. this is not absolute, of course. Both faiths can be construed as having lessons for the way politics should be, and both can lead to theocracies or large organizations with temporal power (the Catholic Church, Tibetan society) but in the modern world this becomes harder and harder.
Islam is in the middle. It is seen as a universal lesson that applies to all but it does deal more with how temporal power should be as well. So, it is easier to interpret Islam in a way that leads to a political ideology, with theories about how the state should work, than it is with Christianity or Buddhism.
So, for me, any greater propensity by one faith other another for violence in the modern world has to do with the relation of Theology to Temporal ideology than it does with anyting else. What is most sorely lacking in the islamic world is a viable non-Islamist political ideology that has brought benefits to the people, and allows them to see their faith and their politics as seperate. It is the fact that the political systems of the islamic world have failed over the last 50 years that cerates an opening for islamist politics to enter the fray. You see this in nigeria. Islam in Nigeria is getting more political with time. It is not a reaction, but a revolution driven by the failures of Nigerian governments in the past. The same was true in Iran under the Shah.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.
Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.
|
There was Islamic violence during the 70's. You have to look no further than the 1972 Olympics and other assorted acts of terrorism by the palestinians. For the most part those actions were seen by americans to be aimed at Israel. The Iranian revolution and the hostage situation were a new situation for americans since they were now directly identified as a target along with Israel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I think an important distinction is, the people posting against Islam on this thread do not consider Rwanda part of the christian west. This is probably because its not an issue against Islam they have, but the 3rd world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Arafat is a secular leader, the PLO is secular, Saddam, many Arab groups are mistaken for representing Islam.
Massacres over religion, Sabra and Shatila? Christian militia groups. The Phalange was one of the nastiest groups around.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-11-2002 08:36
|