PDA

View Full Version : What if the Islamists have their way



Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 11:31 AM
Let us extend this out as far as we logically can...leave out political posturing as it is a distraction

George Jung
07-07-2007, 11:46 AM
Wow, pretty wide open there, Phillip (about 360 degrees, maybe more!)
Are you talking the 'extreme' agenda, or the 'moderate'? If the first, I'd say the only posters here would be named Mohammed or some such... wait! I'll bet this forum would be forbidden, eh? Taken to an extreme - no non-muslims, sharia law for all, a prayer rug in every pot...... is that what you have in mind?

I've seen hints in the news that the 'moderate' Islamists are speaking up a bit more, would like to take control of this issue, but would like to do so without confrontation or conflict...... good luck on that one! LeeG seems to think the extremists are just misunderstood, and if we'd simply (the West) pull back to within our borders, have no trade with the East, etc., everything would be okiedokie - but perhaps he will post here, and clarify. That, of course, raises the issue of what to do with the millions of Muslims living in the West.... well, that's easy, those would be their countries, too.
My guess is - those unwilling to live as Muslim/ unable to make the cut (no pun intended) will have to live someplace the Muslims aren't interested in. Like Antarctica. An all-white, non-muslim country, eh? Imagine, on that snowpack, wouldn't be able to see each other..... but, I digress.....

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 12:04 PM
Their religous leaders seem to operate independant of one another...somewhat tribal. Suppose though, that those leaders gain a collective dictatorial power over as much of the world as they are interested in controlling? Would this be a violent world? would it be a muslim version of nervana or eden, etc?

Woxbox
07-07-2007, 12:08 PM
Religion has nothing to do with it. It's all politics.



Suppose though, that those leaders gain a collective dictatorial power over as much of the world as they are interested in controlling? Would this be a violent world? would it be a muslim version of nervana or eden, etc?


Therefore, it would be the exact same world we have now.

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 12:11 PM
I was wondering if there would be a New Talaban established? World-wide

Woxbox
07-07-2007, 12:14 PM
Even in established Muslim countries, practices, beliefs and tolerance to others varies enormously. Mostly, there's no issue. It's just that the strident ones get the press. At any rate, you can't get half the world to agree on anything, good or bad.

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 12:18 PM
This avoids the question...what would be the logical outcome of a totalitarian Islamist world state (as an example)? Would there be (develop) Islamist factions in constant war with one anbother? Would our offspring end up being the cannon fodder for these struggling imams and the like?

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 12:20 PM
This whole thought springs out of another forum member's apparent notion that if we just were patient and try to understand the Islamists, the world would be much more peaceful...would it?

Woxbox
07-07-2007, 12:29 PM
Of course. It's the Judeo-Christian West that's created all the turmoil in the Mideast. Going back a long way, right back to the Crusades, of course.

Look at Iraq as a case in point. That nation itself was created by Westerners as an impossible amalgamation of peoples with different traditions and cultures. It was bound to fail.

George Jung
07-07-2007, 12:53 PM
Hehehe.... what you smoking, Woxbox? I think you've had enough....

It's the Judeo-Christian West that's created all the turmoil in the Mideast.

Sounds like what I'd expect someone with an incredible bias - from 'the other side' - to say. Telling, nonetheless....

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 01:11 PM
I took it as sarcasm

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-07-2007, 01:41 PM
Of course. It's the Judeo-Christian West that's created all the turmoil in the Mideast. Going back a long way, right back to the Crusades, of course.

I'd tend to go along with this line of thought. Once the Christian World outstripped the Muslims culturally and economically the Muslims got themselves into a snit that has become more deadly as time goes by. I guess it hurts to find out that all that prayer and facial hair will not put food on the table or keep infant mortality down.

Phillip Allen
07-07-2007, 01:50 PM
So the Persians invaded because of the Christians?

ishmael
07-07-2007, 02:08 PM
Um, what would this band of guttersnipes do if handed power? Have a look at what they have done. A young woman making love with her lover, off with her head. Wrong music, off with their heads.

The folks are more than a little nuts. We have to fight this, I'm not sure how.

Uncle Duke
07-07-2007, 02:21 PM
As easy as it is to simplify things, it just not a simple issue. My understanding is that the root issue is that Islam once had unified management/rulers - the "Caliphate" - who ruled over a united Islamic Empire extending from Spain across North Africa, through the "Middle East", and across to Pakistan and into India.
Current fundamentalist groups want to restore that Caliphate - but they're fighting to (1) do it and (2) decide which faction of Islam should rule that unified empire. So there are 2 issues happening at the same time - the common goal to reclaim a unified Islamic empire (which they feel was "stolen" from them) and the infighting to determine which sect (Shia'a, Sunni, etc) will rule that future 'empire'.
That is exactly why there are Islamic issues in Somalia and Darfur, etc - the "who rules after the revolution" problem.
Assuming, of course, that the "revolution" actually happens.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-07-2007, 02:34 PM
So the Persians invaded because of the Christians?

The Persians were a power about 800-900 years before Muhammed came along. By the time of Islam, Persia was in a state where it quickly became part of the Islamic empire.

George Roberts
07-07-2007, 02:43 PM
"Therefore, it would be the exact same world we have now."

I agree. No magic bullets. Just people getting along or not.

Woxbox
07-07-2007, 03:02 PM
Um, what would this band of guttersnipes do if handed power? Have a look at what they have done. A young woman making love with her lover, off with her head. Wrong music, off with their heads.


Christians have been taken to extremes now and then, too. Was the Inquisition about religion or political hegemony? Does that event reflect on all Christians?

After all is said and done, in recent decades the Western nations have done much more to stir the pot than have the Muslim ones. And as always, money and power are the driving forces, not religion.

Nanoose
07-07-2007, 03:54 PM
Therefore, it would be the exact same world we have now.

I don't think so. If the Islamists have their way, the world's population becomes Islaamic through the death of all that won't convert. The world becomes a unified theocracy governed by shari'a law.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on Europe over the next couple of decades. The populations of a few countries there will very soon be Muslim by majority (Caucasian 1.2 children per couple, Islaamic 5.8 children per couple....you can see who will decide elections in 20 years....). Soon thereafter, Islaamic thought will control the governments of those countries.

Woxbox
07-07-2007, 04:43 PM
The populations of a few countries there will very soon be Muslim by majority


I'm told this is expected to happen in Israel much sooner, where the same birth-rate dynamic exists. That will prove very interesting, when the Palestinians have the majority.

I think it's a mistake to assume that if Islam prevails, strict Islamic law will follow. Religion is never exported so effectively. A son of mine lived with a Muslim family in Senegal -- the father was the village imam, he had four wives, about 17 children, and one and all accepted this odd American kid with equanimity. The family and Senegalese culture had long adapted Islam to its own needs and way of life.

I see more to be concerned about when members of our own Congress want to bring prayer back into the schools than the fire and brimstone speeches of a cleric worlds away.

Wild Wassa
07-07-2007, 08:36 PM
"It's the Judeo-Christian West that's created all the turmoil in the Mideast."

Absolutely spot on Woxbox ... but it isn't our fault ... we have a Crusade to finish.

They are 'our' Holy Lands and 'our' Holy Lands are only really for we nice Judeo-Christians. 'Holy Lands' should only be available to nice white middle class boys and girls and other fellow Judeo-Christians of the right type.

If the trespassing Moslems, "they who trespass against us," weren't in 'our' Holy Lands or in 'our' neighbouring lands where they cast a shadow on our Holy Lands, by not allowing 'us' to worship in peace by blocking our Jesus Light, 'we' nice Judeo-Christians, 'we' who have the only real religion ... we wouldn't give a flying hairy rat's arse.

May god bless only us ... 'we' Judeo-Christians of the right type, that is.

To the rest of you, those without a real religion, bad luck and expect more Armagedons to visit a location near you and enjoy your eternity in hell. Either convert or die sinners! Those who are in the know, the US religious right, they who are closer to God than anyone sinners, they say that, "Hell isn't a very nice place." ... ... in fact Hell looks nearly as bad as living in Gaza.

Warren.

Kaa
07-07-2007, 08:46 PM
I don't think so. If the Islamists have their way, the world's population becomes Islaamic through the death of all that won't convert.

Huh? First of all, Christian and Jews are known in Islam as "people of the book" and don't have to convert at all. They get hit with, I think, an extra tax and that's about it. Second, "convert or die" is rare in the history of islam after the inital wave of conquest. Historically there's been tons of Muslim states with religiously mixed populations.


The world becomes a unified theocracy governed by shari'a law.

That, yes. In Islam there's no distinction between the sacred and the secular. State affairs are a proper field for religion.


It will be interesting to keep an eye on Europe over the next couple of decades. The populations of a few countries there will very soon be Muslim by majority (Caucasian 1.2 children per couple, Islaamic 5.8 children per couple....you can see who will decide elections in 20 years....). Soon thereafter, Islaamic thought will control the governments of those countries.

Umm... citations, please? I doubt very much in 20 years any Western European country will have a majority of Muslims.

Kaa

Nanoose
07-07-2007, 10:45 PM
Huh? First of all, Christian and Jews are known in Islam as "people of the book" and don't have to convert at all. They get hit with, I think, an extra tax and that's about it.

Jews and Christians were originally "people of the book" in Mohammad's revelations (2:62, 29:46). Yet his disposition shifted: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews And the Christians For your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors To each other" (5:54) "If anyone desires A religion other than Islam, Never will it be accepted Of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks Of those who have lost (All spiritual good)" (3:85). And in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not in God...Nor acknowledge the Religion Of Truth, (even if they are) Of the People of the Book, Until they pay the Jizya With willing submission, And feel themselves subdued."

And, some examples from the earliest biography of Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad), trans. A. Guillaume (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980): The first in a series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu'l-Ashraf, for writing poetry against Muslims. Not only calling for the assassination, the prophet explicitly gave his assassins permission to lie and use trickery in order to accomplish their mission (p.367-8). We then read he next said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." and of the results of that call (p. 369). Later, after having expelled two Jewish tribes from Medina, Muhammad orchestrated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city. Somewhere between 600-900 men were beheaded in one day ( p.387). This is just a small sample.


Second, "convert or die" is rare in the history of islam after the inital wave of conquest. Historically there's been tons of Muslim states with religiously mixed populations.

Nowhere in the Qur'an are the commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. We see evidence of this in continuing violence of orthodox Muslims against anyone not acknowledging the rule of Islaam. And as for Muslim states with religiously mixed populations, that may be true, but so is the illegality of any religion other than Islaam in those countries - many with the penalty of death.



Umm... citations, please? I doubt very much in 20 years any Western European country will have a majority of Muslims. Kaa

"Whether something does/doesn't cause offence to Muslims is the current principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK."

"The median age in the Gaza strip is 15.8 years. How do you persuade a pseudo-nation of unemployed, poorly educated boys raised in a death cult to see sense?... Fertility rates throughout Europe range from 1.3 to 1.1 births/couple. Islaam has youth and will (serious global ambitions form the core identity of most of its adherants - in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere). Europe has age and welfare."

"On the continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic.....of course not all Muslims are terrorists - though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists - though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the "good cop" end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in....When a European jihadist blows something up, ... He's jumping the gun, but in every respect things are moving his way."

(Maclean's, Oct. 23/06, p.31-37,"The New World Order"; reprinted from "America Alone" by Mark Steyn, Regnery Pub., 2006).

L.W. Baxter
07-07-2007, 11:12 PM
I hear we'll each get 70 virgins.

Nanoose
07-07-2007, 11:13 PM
I hear we'll each get 70 virgins.

"We'll".....you're a jihadist are you, LW? :eek:

L.W. Baxter
07-07-2007, 11:34 PM
If the Islamists have their way I expect I'll have my chance to get blown up for God, and that's when the 70 virgins come in, as I understand it.

BrianW
07-08-2007, 12:13 AM
I see more to be concerned about when members of our own Congress want to bring prayer back into the schools than the fire and brimstone speeches of a cleric worlds away.

I find that simply amazing.

PeterSibley
07-08-2007, 12:44 AM
I see more to be concerned about when members of our own Congress want to bring prayer back into the schools than the fire and brimstone speeches of a cleric worlds away.

It certainly has a greater sense of immediacy !:(

TMny
07-08-2007, 01:35 AM
The Islamic extremists often seem to demand the 'right' to worship as they see fit, wherever they be. And once they attain rule they impose sharia, and any 'defections' (conversions) are dealt with harshly. We saw that in Afganistan under Taliban rule 'jihad' was institutionalized as insurgency training and exportation. Ancient Buddhist religious artifacts were destroyed in the name of purity.

Meanwhile Indonesia has become democratic, and retains traditional islamic cultural tolerance. Indonesia is not a problem. Turkey since Ataturk hasn't been a progressively radicalising state, not a problem.
The intersection of 'fanatic' and 'Islamic' currently poses a threat.

Practically the US (and the west , largely) has been slow to grasp the challenge posed by alqaeda. In "Through Our Enemies Eyes" {Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam , and the Future of America} c2002, Brassey's , M. Sheurer documents that Al Qaeda abhores specific American foreign policies [while cultural reversion underpines hatred of the infidels, it is specific policies which incur direct attacks] and suggests that either the U.S. "get tough" , or depart from our mideastern interests ("get out"). Sheurer specifically and repeatedly rejects Thomas Friedmans' position that Islamic antipathy is founded on resentment/jealousy of Western nations' success. Alqaedas' principals warned Spain that continued cooperation with the U.S./Coallition forces in Iraq would be costly; the Madrid bombings influenced the elections .

The identity of "the Islamists" is key. Most muslims are not descended from or much influenced by the Wahabi Sunni sect that al Qutb rhetorically drove 'off the cliff'. But in religious matters , purity is good. In the U.S.'s current religious revival , the conservative evangelical fundamentalist Christians hold more sway than their numbers because they are 'proximate the godhead'.

Some 25 years ago a letter to the editor of the NYTs claimed that the Arabs were such people that if they gained control over 'palestine' , that they would be soon bitterly infighting ... a fair prediction of the present status in Gaza.

There are historical issues (Crusades, 1920 , 1948, 1967, 1973...) between the 'zionist/infidels' and the islamists.
There are cultural gulfs between the West and the Arabs , and each and Persians. There is a schism between Shia and Sunni. The West is seen as colonial occupiers. The US oil companies and the CIA are resented for their corporate and political effects. The 'plight' of the Palestinians is a huge festering problem , though the Ottomans also colonised/occupied Palestine. The "Palestinians" have been slow to come to terms with their (and their allies) defeat at the hands of the Israelites/Zionists ... and imagine that backing by the U.S.A. was always what foiled the pan-Arab military adventures.

In the same way that close friends and brothers can be fierce rivals/beligerants , our interests characterise radical Islam. If the West weren't commited to protecting Israel , and trading in mideast petroleum , radical Islam would not be a subject worthy of the bilge.

Had the US and Saudi Arabia not backed the Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters , expelling the Soviets , it's not likely alqaeda would have imagined it could neutralise the USA/West.

Woxbox
07-08-2007, 08:34 AM
If the West weren't commited to protecting Israel , and trading in mideast petroleum , radical Islam would not be a subject worthy of the bilge.

Had the US and Saudi Arabia not backed the Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters , expelling the Soviets , it's not likely alqaeda would have imagined it could neutralise the USA/West.


Exactly so. We reap what we sow.

Nanoose
07-08-2007, 08:58 AM
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

Islam was founded on/through violence. Violence goes to the very roots of Islam as found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of Muhammad himself. They believe "the last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them....; It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world; Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers" (Saudi Arabian middle school textbook pub. 2000).

It's not oil. It's the basis of their belief.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2007, 09:42 AM
I agree it's not the oil. What mystifies me is the number of shallow thinking folks who pass the trouble off as being fomented by "big business". That attitude just doesn't satisfy me at all...too easy/convenient to be true

George Roberts
07-08-2007, 09:48 AM
"If the West weren't commited to protecting Israel , and trading in mideast petroleum , radical Islam would not be a subject worthy of the bilge.

Had the US and Saudi Arabia not backed the Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters , expelling the Soviets , it's not likely alqaeda would have imagined it could neutralise the USA/West."

It is really hard to make correct political decisions. It is much harder to suggest an alternative history and predict the correct present.

Given your "if"s and "had"s what would the present be like? Who would be fighting who and who would have the ability to fight?

---

Let's nuke 99.9% of the population and let the remaining 6 million take another stab at getting along.

LeeG
07-08-2007, 09:56 AM
I haven't read the thread but just to make sure we're talking about something real. Who EXACTLY are you refering to when you say "Islamists"? Could you narrow it down to a specific please?

George Jung
07-08-2007, 10:10 AM
Islam was founded on/through violence. Violence goes to the very roots of Islam as found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of Muhammad himself. They believe "the last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them....; It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world; Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers" (Saudi Arabian middle school textbook pub. 2000).

It's not oil. It's the basis of their belief.

It also does little to explain the fighting in other parts of the world, attacks by Muslims where oil certainly was not the issue.
How to 'win' this war? Our size/military ability actually seems to go against us; no specific 'country' to focus on, too many countries to focus on...... where to start? I suspect those 'in the know' have wrestled with that very problem..... and look where we are now? The biggest problem, as far as that's concerned, is that the US population feels that, if you can't destroy the enemy within a very short time frame, and do so without incurring any losses, than we have 'lost' - 'again'. Recognize that, in this 'war', looking at it objectively, 'we are winning', just not in the sense of American expectations. Is it the right approach? Don't know; got a better idea (and I'll up-front reject 'appeasement')

SamSam
07-08-2007, 11:50 AM
As easy as it is to simplify things, it just not a simple issue.
That is exactly why there are Islamic issues in Somalia and Darfur, etc - the "who rules after the revolution" problem.


I just read an article by Sebastion Junger that points to China's hunger for oil as the underlieing reason for the problems in Darfur. If the World Bank loans money to an impoverished nation, they put conditions on the loan such as 80% of profits have to go for humanitarian projects like healthcare, food etc. They can't put enough money into arms etc. to defend themselves. Ethnic rebel groups in the Darfur region were fighting and winning, so the best course of action for president al-Bashir, an Islamist, was to borrow money from China and back it up with future Sudanese oil profits. Not neccessarily profits but control of production and a share in that. Also included is exclusive contracts for China to finance, build, equip and run the oil industry with Chinese money, equipment and personel. The Sudanese themselves are used and treated as slaves to accomplish these things. The Chinese also sell Sudan the weapons needed to "protect" themselves. The Chinese are also the underlieing motivators for rebel invasions of Chad, to get control of their undeveloped oil resources, which ironically or paradoxictly or something has actually got Darfurnian refugees in Chad now scurrying back into the Darfur region to get away from the rebels that were killing them before.

The Chinese are doing all they can to get control of Africa and it's natural resources to keep their own economy going up. They have absolutely no compassion for human life in Africa, or the problems they cause exploiting the resources and very little for their own country. Religion has a small part in the process, but mainly distracts attention from their power grab.

The article is "Enter China, The Giant" in the July, 2007 issue of Vanity Fair.

ishmael
07-08-2007, 12:46 PM
All the world's religions contain, have been, violent. Of the Middle Eastern morph's Christ's message is the least violent. I don't take any of them on their face. That's the huge mistake of all the idiots who make war out of them. Scripture is poetry, not prose.

To heal the burning of your sorrow,
I seek a flame.
To gather the dust of your door,
I seek the palms of my hands.
To deal with you hiding behind your holiness,
I seek a good time instead.

Rumi

Nanoose
07-08-2007, 01:29 PM
Christ's message is the least violent.


Christ's message was NON-violent - in his words, life and death.

ishmael
07-08-2007, 01:48 PM
There are a few flashes of fierce in the Christ's message. He goes after the money changers in the temple, curses the unfruitful fig tree, says he's here to bring not peace but a sword. Those are part of what makes him human.

But in general, I agree. Non-violence is the over riding message. Of the world's religions, Christianity in its purer forms, and Buddhism top my list. Now if more people actually practiced them! I guess the thing to do is to try myself.

TMny
07-08-2007, 11:42 PM
>"the last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them....; It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world; Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers" (Saudi Arabian middle school textbook pub. 2000).

--Nanoose , and George Jung-
I yield, you are correct that a significant aspect of the current scene is the spector of radical islamists attacking multiple European entities (and Russia) near simultaneously , also Chinese territories and Indonesia.
My knowledge of Islam is pretty thin/limited. However , quoting from a Saudi mid-school text narrows the field to Wahabi influence, in a particular Saudi historical context. I believe these passages would not be found in Tunisian and Indonesian texts. The Saudis have reputedly funded madrassas and mosques through the world (even U.S.A.)., somewhat comparable to US State Dept 'democracy' programs abroad {except inherently theologically/ideologically Islamo-facist}, funded by plentiful petrodollars. It is said to be that the Saudi ruling elites are quite wealthy and worldly, with markedly 'secular' [or, if religious, then corrupt/sinful] tastes/lifestyles.

-{Perhaps you have observed a possibly disquieting tendency among U.S./American 'televangelists' to present a public image that is somewhat inconsistent with their private lives... maybe the fellow who harangues at church to parishoners to maintain their marriage vows , and is found to maintain a mistress; or the preacher last year who railed against 'gays' , and was later "outed" by a 'homo' masseuse. Well , these are properly termed incidences of hypocrisy (i think!) , and one might , in view of the Catholic priesthoods' recent trials , be tempted to consider at least some ministries , of being at high risk for hypocrisy.}

-It is 'common knowledge' that the Saudi ruling elites are 1.) notably corrupt/secular , and that they 2.) play an active part in promoting the Wahabi conservatism, and were until recently beneficent worldwide supporters of radical islamists, and alqaaeda. Rather than a situation of doddering hypocritical sheiks , this constitutes a conscious , ingrained political technique of control/submission. By inciting resentment/hatred of foreigners {here Thos Friedman's thrust IS relevant}, the Saudis effectively export the social unrest occasioned by their society.

-That is, the Wahabi worldview , combined with the Muslim Brotherhood (and Qtub ) influences , simultaneously promote disciplined dutiful drones with no political representation to speak of at home , while legitimizing wanton bloodletting and ruthless destruction abroad , al for allah and country....

-At this point , Lee G.s query is on target:
>Who EXACTLY are you refering to when you say "Islamists"?

-The Indonesian government (of freely elected Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono {!}) is presently attempting diplomatic negotiations with corresponding middleastern muslim actors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/world/asia/08indo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
To Gain Among Muslims, Indonesia Offers to Mediate Middle East Disputes
By DONALD GREENLEES June 8, 2007
[Excerpt]:
“Countries in the Middle East have been so deeply involved in the problems of the region for so long a time that they can get too focused on some specific aspects,” Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda said in an interview.
“We, who follow events in the Middle East from a distance, can see a larger, clear picture,” Mr. Wirajuda said. “Hence we are able to produce some fresh ideas that might be helpful in the quest for a solution.”
* * *
-The best present appraisal of the (particularly mideastern) muslim world holds that they are undergoing changes comparable to the previous Protestant Reformation, which took some time and blood before dissipating.

* * * *
>It's not oil. It's the basis of their belief.

It also does little to explain the fighting in other parts of the world, attacks by Muslims where oil certainly was not the issue.

--George Jung
Again , M. Sheurer described OsamaBinLaden toiling consistently through the 1990s to build a business empire to sustain his cadres. I believe there has been resistance to Dutch petroleum exploitation in the vicinity of Indonesia since the colonial era. OBL, Kahlid Sheik Mohammad , and Ayman Al-Zawahiri collaborated on the 'Bojinka' plot to simultaneously explode several western airliners over the Pacific during the '90s , IIRC. [plot foiled by investigation of apartment fire , possibly in Jacarta)

-Thus , while the bulk of muslims worldwide aren't Sunni/Wahabi/MuslimBrothers , much of the widespread radical Islam has roots in alqaeda's worldview. {This doesn't explain the popularity of OBL tee-shirts among some Latin American communities , though}.
* * *

>It is really hard to make correct political decisions. It is much harder to suggest an alternative history and predict the correct present.

Given your "if"s and "had"s what would the present be like? Who would be fighting who and who would have the ability to fight?

--George Roberts-
Agreed. I refer you to M. Sheurer's comment, "Get tough, or get out" regarding the viability of continued American participation
in Mideastern affairs. In 1985 the price of petroleum was expected (well, predicted by some) to be $50/barrel by 1990. In 1998 it ran about $12. From the current perspective the abandonment of President Jimmy Carter's imperative to decrease U.S. dependence on mideast oil was somewhat shortsighted. When "W" was governor of Texas he passed legislation allowing Texas to become the leading U.S. state in windpower production, by last year (or 2005?).

-The invasion/liberation of Iraq was a step toward promoting democratic rule in a region of poor despotic governments. One of the things most anti-American mideasterners agree(d) about is that the United States' continued support of (poor/corrupt) autocratic governments is/was deplorable. So, during the occupation , virtually all surrounding [(poor/corrupt) autocratic governments] have worked against the democratic initiative... , not that they would have had to , given the lack of progress.

Kaa
07-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Jews and Christians were originally "people of the book" in Mohammad's revelations (2:62, 29:46). Yet his disposition shifted...

The Quran is not the most coherent of books :-) Just like the Old Testament the message is mixed and varies according to the political needs of the day. It's possible to find quotes to support most any position.

However, throughout Islamic history Christians and Jews were treated as "people of the book" and had special status under Islamic rule. In particular, they weren't forced to convert.


Nowhere in the Qur'an are the commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. We see evidence of this in continuing violence of orthodox Muslims against anyone not acknowledging the rule of Islaam.

You don't mean "orthodox", you mean "extremist". There are more than a billion Muslims on Earth and a lot of them would qualify as "orthodox". They are not violent against anyone not acknowledging their rule.

As to the command to fight, again, do compare the Quran to the Old Testament. Not to mention that the word "jihad" means only "active effort towards some end". You can interpret is as violent fighting (and some do), and you can interpret it as a struggle to improve oneself (and some do).



And as for Muslim states with religiously mixed populations, that may be true, but so is the illegality of any religion other than Islaam in those countries - many with the penalty of death.

Huh? Is it illegal to be Jewish in Iran? Or Christian in Pakistan? How about Egypt with its population of Coptic Christians? Examples, please.




"The median age in the Gaza strip is 15.8 years. ...

"On the continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic...

That's all handwaving and scaremongering.

You made a specific prediction -- that in 20 years there will be Western European countries where the majority of the population will be Muslim. I don't think this is true. Your quotes just handwave about Muslim demographics. You have any quotes with numbers?

Kaa

Nanoose
07-09-2007, 02:23 PM
The Quran is not the most coherent of books :-) Just like the Old Testament the message is mixed and varies according to the political needs of the day. It's possible to find quotes to support most any position.


Agreed! Read a section of the Quran, then read a section of the OT or NT. The differences are huge.

The OT message is not mixed. The message spoken to different cultures and times varied slightly (application), but not significantly. And it is definately not a "mixed" message. You may need to clarify in what way it is "mixed" if that is your understanding.



However, throughout Islamic history Christians and Jews were treated as "people of the book" and had special status under Islamic rule. In particular, they weren't forced to convert.


The quotes I supplied were directly from the Quran and the example of Muhammed's life. His murderous crusades against the Jews are documented. Hard to intimate they were accepted/tolerated when he was killing them, don't you think?




You don't mean "orthodox", you mean "extremist". There are more than a billion Muslims on Earth and a lot of them would qualify as "orthodox". They are not violent against anyone not acknowledging their rule.


Again, my quotes were from the Quran and the example of it's founders life. It would seem, as Islam is about attaining full obedience to the Quran and exemplifying Muhammed's life, that violence would be normative for any "good" (obedient) Muslim.



As to the command to fight, again, do compare the Quran to the Old Testament. Not to mention that the word "jihad" means only "active effort towards some end". You can interpret is as violent fighting (and some do), and you can interpret it as a struggle to improve oneself (and some do).


"active effort towards some end" - agreed. And that end is getting the world to either convert to Islam or be killed if they won't. That definately seems like "violent fighting" to me, yes; and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't interpret it as "violent fighting".

Re the Quran and OT commands to fight, as I stated earlier, the Quran's is general - all times/places. The OT commands were specific judgements against one group of people, not a general, eternal "call to arms".



Huh? Is it illegal to be Jewish in Iran? Or Christian in Pakistan? How about Egypt with its population of Coptic Christians? Examples, please.


I'll research and get back.



That's all handwaving and scaremongering.

You made a specific prediction -- that in 20 years there will be Western European countries where the majority of the population will be Muslim. I don't think this is true. Your quotes just handwave about Muslim demographics. You have any quotes with numbers?


My "20 years" was a misquote. Sorry. I retract that specific time frame. As far as a majority of the population being Muslim, I understood that to be the current situation in France. I'll have to go do some research and get back.

Kaa
07-09-2007, 04:38 PM
Nanoose, you're looking at a caricature of Islam drawn by not-at-all-sympathetic Christians. It's about as true as the similar caricatures of Judaism were 100-150 years ago.

Islam is a large, diverse, complicated religion -- just like Christianity, or Buddhism, or Hinduism. There are numerous branches, sects, and schools of thought, especially as Islam never had a single theological authority similar to the Catholic Church. Trying to paint all Muslims as violent psychopaths is, well, useful for propaganda purposes but is not really conducive to a reasonable discussion. Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Does it match your pictures you're drawing?

As to France, the estimates are that Muslims (that is, people who came from historically Muslim countries and may or may not be observant Muslims personally) are between 5% and 10% of the population.

Kaa

Nanoose
07-09-2007, 04:51 PM
Kaa -

Yes. I was incorrect. France has the highest Muslim population in Europe put at just under 10% of the population.

Regarding the illegality of holding to a faith other than Islam in a number of countries, I had trouble substantiating that in terms of specific law. However I did find a pattern of persecution of those of other faiths in Muslim countries throughout the world, based (again) on the Quran:

Wikipedia: Apostasy in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam)
In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion) by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy). Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason), and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution)

10 March 2005; BRITISH CONVERTS FROM ISLAM
Some 3,000 Christians in the UK are in danger because they have chosen to convert from Islam. ...Nissar Hussain, a Christian from Bradford, has suffered three years of harassment, amounting effectively to persecution, from the local Muslims in his neighbourhood. ...should not be a surprise. From its inception, Islam has rigorously sought to prevent its adherents from choosing any other faith. Such apostates are regarded as traitors and – according to shari’a (Islamic law) – should be executed.

There are many thousands of former Muslims, in scores of countries around the world, who are suffering for their decision to follow Christ. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan the law of the land specifies the death sentence for apostates from Islam... be persecuted in a multitude of other ways, including imprisonment and torture. In countries where there is no law against conversion, other laws may be used as a pretext, or “accidents” may be arranged. In addition, zealous individual Muslims may take it on themselves to kill a convert. ...

The number of individuals at risk in the UK is substantial. It is conservatively estimated that there are 1,500 to 2,000 Iranians, approaching 1,000 Arabs, and some 150 Pakistanis and others living in this country who have left Islam to become Christians.....some are asylum-seekers who have fled much graver dangers in their countries of origin. If such individuals are refused asylum and sent home, they could face imprisonment, torture or death.

DUBLIN, June 28 (Compass Direct News) -- Muslim villagers armed with bricks and wooden clubs savagely beat 10 Christian converts in Nilphamari district, Bangladesh, on Tuesday (June 26) and threatened to burn down their homes if they did not leave by today. .. Muslim extremists also threatened to kill two Christians.

ISTANBUL, June 27 (Compass Direct News) -- ...Ten days prior, his own brother-in-law, Fouad Salim, had not been so fortunate when militants killed him in Baghdad as he left his work at a police station in Razaliyah.

“It was because of his religion,” said the Syrian Catholic, who asked to remain anonymous. “They asked him to be Islamicized [convert to Islam], and when he refused they killed him.”

Salim, 32, left behind a wife and two children, a 5-year-old son and a 2-year-old daughter.

JAKARTA, INDONESIA(BosNewsLife) -- ...The latest trial in predominantly Muslim Indonesia comes amid reports that Muslim militants have threatened to close house churches in West Java amid growing tensions. In one of the latest incidents this month (June 2007) a pastor said Muslims stormed his church during services, smashing images of Jesus Christ and demanding it be closed down. The attack was the second on the Protestant church in the West Java town of Soreang since 2005, news reports said. Reverend Robby Elisa said about 100 people attacked the church while Sunday school was in session, adding that his wife and a teenager were beaten.

FAISALABAD, PAKISTAN (ANS) -- Describing an attack launched by Muslim residents of a Pakistani village in the province of Punjab, the Christian residents have said that Muslim residents mounted the attack in a bid to force them to cancel an Salvation Army evangelistic convention that was scheduled for June 17th.

The Christian residents of a predominantly Muslim village named Bismillahpur Kannanth chak (village) no. 248 RB ...said that some Muslim residents made forcible entry into the home of Christian, Sardar Masih’s home, and left his son Shahbaz Masih and daughter Nabeela injured. ...the Muslim attackers also ransacked Masih’s house.


BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BosNewsLife) -- Iraqi Christians are mourning the deaths of a Catholic priest and his three assistants who were gunned down by Islamic militants over the weekend, shortly after another Christian couple working for the US embassy was reportedly killed, BosNewsLife established Tuesday, June 5/07.

ISTANBUL, TURKEY (BosNewsLife) -- ...the gruesome killing of three Christian men my Muslim militants at a Christian publishing house in southeastern Turkey last week. ..."With about 40 people in front of me, I said that I had just come back from the funerals in Malatya and Izmir and I met with the widows of the Christians who were killed [on April 18 at a Christian publishing house in Malatya]," Byle reportedly added. "I said I was amazed with how gentle they were and how forgiving they were of their husband’s killers."

ISTANBUL, TURKEY (BosNewsLife) -- There was increased concern Thursday, April 26, about the plight of active Christians in Turkey after investigators revealed that three evangelical believers were "satanically tortured" last week before being killed.

The influential American human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) with website www.persecution.org (http://www.persecution.org) ...a group of “faithful believers” in Islam, ICC added. ..."The young men tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs as they videoed their work on their cell phones," ICC said, adding that what "followed in the next three hours is beyond belief."

ICC said the men were "disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed." The group added that "fingers were chopped off" and "their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open" as part of what it called "satanic torture."

It added that "possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count." Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, and their "heads practically decapitated," ICC said.

Nanoose
07-09-2007, 05:03 PM
Trying to paint all Muslims as violent psychopaths


No, I'm not trying to do so, Kaa. I stated above that "obviously" these are not the actions of ALL Muslims.

However, I am showing that from it's inception, Islam has been a faith based on violence. The teachings are clear in the Qur'an, and in the life of Mohammed. The faith was inaugurated, established and perpetuated through fear and violence. The pattern has been clear right from the beginning. Whether all Muslims embrace this fact, or not, it is there. Yes, only some act on it, but it is not due to incorrect understandings or faulty interpretations of the Qur'an. However, based on Islamic teaching it would seem they are the more obedient Islamic sect.

few3
07-09-2007, 08:59 PM
Oh, thats right, PBS refused to show the documentary our tax dollars paid for ( turns out the Executive Producer is a Conservative, PBS told the director to change the film and fire him... and he wouldn't )

http://www.freethefilm.net/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285695,00.html

skuthorp
07-09-2007, 09:23 PM
Quote:
"Suppose though, that those leaders gain a collective dictatorial power over as much of the world as they are interested in controlling? Would this be a violent world? would it be a muslim version of nervana or eden, etc? "

Just substitute catholic Spain when they expelled the moors and their national behavior for the next few hundred years. History repeating itself, except it's being done to the west this time rather than us doing it to them.

Osborne Russell
07-10-2007, 07:52 AM
No, I'm not trying to do so, Kaa. I stated above that "obviously" these are not the actions of ALL Muslims.


By their fruits shall ye know them.

Osborne Russell
07-10-2007, 08:00 AM
WRT the PBS special -- since it hasn't been on I haven't seen it. PBS says it was pulled because it was "biased" or some such -- I doubt it. Who would it be biased against? Radical Islamists? Boo hoo.

I bet it was pulled out of cowardice, dressed up in bogus sensitivity. They could care less about the feelings of moderate Muslims, or anybody. They just don't want their funding cut.

Same attitude the "journalists" had for the first couple of the Chimp years. To hear them tell it, there was nothing special to report.