Told you so!
Remember this discussion we’ve had way back in April 2004 in which I contended that:
This is however what I have seen, an unsuspecting motorsports tourist approaches, he gets handed the “package” he walks away opening it as he does so thinking he’ll get something about motorsports, a restaurant guide, a tourist map, etc and discovers that someone wants to convert him. The same person (several actually) walk then to the closest rubbish bin and toss the whole package in there.
Do you think the bin is the right place for the Holy Qur’an?
Well, some mug just got fired for doing just that. And get this: Islamist parliamentarians are blowing it again out of all proportion, demanding an extra-ordinary parliamentary session probably to roundly denounce this infidel, and ask his embassy for a full apology!
Well done Discover Islam, and of course the usual suspects in parliament… isn’t it wonderful that there are now UNDER 200 days left for the inauguration of (hopefully) a better parliament?
skribe
Tacit agreement from a billion plus people?!? Thats a pretty big leap isnt it? Especially in light of the fact that a good portion of them either have no idea or no concern about whats happening in the rest of the world. What about the Chinese? Would you say that there are a billion supporters of Chinese human rights abuses?
It is true that the populace will suffer the consequences of their leaders actions.
Gizmo
Perhaps I am missing your point but in my opinion religion has NO place in government.
Steve
If the KSA is responsible for supporting these miscreant types (and I would agree that they are) isnt the oil burning West implicitly guilty. Furthermore, as you mentioned, this is state sponsored foreign policy. What are the elections like in the KSA?
The crusades? Are you serious? The Muslims took Jerusalem in the 7th century and the Christians took it back in the 11th. People have been living there for 5000 yrs. who had it first? Like skribe said the zealots are still fighting the crusades. The American Indians were a brutally conquered people and you say at least they got a reservation.
The march of progress, survival of the fittest. I make no apologies for my fathers actions and I accept none of the blame. The only point that really matters is what are WE doing today. Do I have to hate you because your father hated my father? We need to lose this nationalist, racist, faithist school yard clique bullshit and treat people with respect based on their own personal behavior.
Besides that I am right there with ya.
Islam needs a mechanism for change and the only one I see is the free flow of information. It has too much yang and not enough yin.
Learn to read, Will. I said there was tacit agreement from many and that most of the rest were silent.
What about the Chinese? Would you say that there are a billion supporters of Chinese human rights abuses?
Yeah. The govt did a good job of removing those that complained in 89. Now the Chinese are more interested in making shit-loads of money, scoring drugs and getting laid than fighting for their rights. That’s the difference between the Islamic world and the post-Commie Sinai: while both have used the stick, only the Chinese have inserted the carrot. The gilded-cage and all.
They sure didnt make those reservations into lucrative casinos thanks to the American goverment . Steve if your going to use the Indian card at least get it right. The Indians mostly got the worst piece of property in any state. 100+ years later they got lucrative casinos inspite of the American goverment.
Sorry skribe how much is the many part of 1.5 billion?
Are you equating the government with the populace?
“The Muslims took Jerusalem in the 7th century and the Christians took it back in the 11th. People have been living there for 5000 yrs. who had it first?”
The Jews.
Rant = on:
Many forget that the idea of fiqh is basically a doglike mentality: “I am the most recent pisser on this fire hydrant therefore it’s mine”. Sorry, Bzzt, wrong. YHWH chose the Jews as the chosen people LONG before an Arab got uppity in Medina and decided Jerusalem should be his.
If Palestinians want ‘right of return’, I propose that the Jews have right of return as well. Everything that belonged to the historical Israel should be returned to the descendants of its original owners. This, of course, means that the Mosques at the temple mount need to be demolished so that the correct religious structures for Jerusalem can be built.
And.. if Jews really did control the world, that would have been done in 1947.
But Jews.. nice people. Same can’t be said for any of their neighbors since 600 AD.
I’m glad that’s just a rant Ethan. Full generalisations are Steve’s exclusive domain normally, not yours!
Will: Sorry skribe
Apology accepted. Just don’t do it again. =)
Grace
You still are not answering the question
It requires a Yes or a No. Here it is again:-
“do you find that you, as a follower of Islam, are insulted and that your religion is insulted when another person (professing themselves to be a Muslim) murders an innocent person in the name of Allah? ”
You see, I suspect your inability to answer the question and condemn such activity is representative of the problems of denial and avoidance that plague this region.
steve my sweet ..
the black plague, huh. not the intrinsic corruption of the church? not the bonfire of the vanities and what it entialed? not the incestous relationship between the european elite and the church that ended up eventually pitting one against the other?
i think that eveything has its own natural timing. and, i think that most moslems today are being forced to take a vocal position. i myself have found a huge difference between my reaction to things today than pre 9-11. i find myself being more vocal against what is supposedly being done in my name ..my religion.
the rupture between the clergy and the governments will happen. it is going to take time. and trust me, what will be bloodier than the crusades and the ‘war of civilizations’ will be the civil war within Islam. just take a good long look at iraq and the sectatrian war that is being flamed and will at some point vast a very very dark shadow over the rest of the moslem gulf …
ethan .. i wont respond to your rant, because i dont like your tone. steve at least as sense of humor. i am not sure what your saving grace is.
buttercups rule
Jasra: “the black plague, huh. not the intrinsic corruption of the church? not the bonfire of the vanities and what it entialed? not the incestous relationship between the european elite and the church that ended up eventually pitting one against the other?”
I agree that the selling of indulgences and the party boy popes were corrupt. I’m not so sure as you that corruption would have been enough to precipitate a reformation by itself. Leafing through history, I see many corrupt regimes that last a very long time. To take a recent example, the corrupt Soviet Union would have likely lasted a very long time had Reagan not pressed them by overbuilding the US military. The corrupt Ottoman Empire would have lived on, sputtering and gasping, if not for WWI.
It seems to me that the Black Plague prepared the ground for the Reformation by undermining the respect of common people for their institutions. Savonarola’s bonfires seem more a reaction to that declining respect for the church.
By an interesting coincidence, I stood on the spot of the bonfire of the vanities and Savonarola’s burning at the stake in Florence last November.
Jasra: “the rupture between the clergy and the governments will happen. it is going to take time. and trust me, what will be bloodier than the crusades and the ‘war of civilizations’ will be the civil war within Islam. just take a good long look at iraq and the sectatrian war that is being flamed and will at some point vast a very very dark shadow over the rest of the moslem gulf … “
You are far more sanguine about a liberal reformation of Islam than me. I believe other events will overtake any slow transformation. This time next year it’s likely that an air campaign will be mounted against Iran’s nuclear program. Probably, the Iranians will respond with terror attacks within America. Should they succeed in striking an American city in a significant way, the war in Iraq will look like a tea party by comparison. Maybe a catastrophe in Iran is what’s necessary to convince Muslims that letting religious nuts rule them is madness.
Steve
billT: “They sure didnt make those reservations into lucrative casinos thanks to the American goverment . Steve if your going to use the Indian card at least get it right. The Indians mostly got the worst piece of property in any state. 100+ years later they got lucrative casinos inspite of the American goverment.”
Not so, Bill. Those reservations are not bad if you are looking at them through the eyes of a hunter-gatherer. I visited an Apache reservation in New Mexico that was set in the hills above the desert in their traditional hunting grounds. That’s a great place for Apache hunters, though it’s not much of a place for white city slickers to build a factory.
The Indians built their casinos because the US government honored its agreements with them. The Muslims, by contrast, are not going to allow infidels to profit wildly in their midst. For example, all the oil concessions in the Middle East, built up by Western companies at their own risk, were nationalized by Muslim governments after they had become successful. By contrast, the US government did not nationalize the Indian casinos nor do ordinary Americans resent the Indian’s success. Most Americans laugh about how the Indians outfoxed the government and wish them well.
Mahmood: “I’m glad that’s just a rant Ethan. Full generalisations are Steve’s exclusive domain normally, not yours!”
Many thanks for helping defend my turf, Mahmood.
Steve
Hmmm..
Sorry for the long hiatus all,
Steve,
Your points are wrong on so many levels, IMO. The couple points I take from you that I think are even worth debunking (because they are the most dangerous) are the following:
Worthy Point 1:
“Yes, I do hold all billion plus Muslims responsible to greater or lesser degree for the terrorist atrocities perpetrated to propagate Islam.”
Really? And what hand did my grandmother have in Sep11? You have essentially just leveled a [b]charge[/b] against my grandmother with responsibility for Sep 11. I want you to realise the magnitude of this – you have levelled the charge, that my grandma, was in some way, responsible for 3000+ dead. At the very LEAST, you have just called her an accomplise to murder. Now if you are to make such a charge, then I demand you show evidence that she is responsible in [i]any[/i] way, shape or form. And just so that we are clear on what “responsible” means, here is the definition for you:
re·spon·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spns-bl)
adj.
Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
Being a source or cause.
Able to make moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior.
Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.
(From dictionary.com)
If you cannot show she is responsible in any way shape or form, then the onus is on you to FULLY RETRACT your statement above.
Worthy Point 2:
“Islam was violent from the beginning”.
This, I do not contest. In fact, I may even agree with it indeed being violent from the very beginning.
The issue that I do take up with you Steve, is that you are dropping the context of the [i]time and era[/i] Islam existed in, and judging it by today’s standards. Let me explain some more:
First off, what ancient empire of the past, WASNT immorally brutal and violent? Let me re-phrase that: What expansionist empire of the ancient past ever expanded by creating pamphelts instead of subjugation via the sword? Let us start with the Roman empire, which if anything, glorified gore, blood and guts, and nicely incorporated those qualities into its Imperial warfare of sujugation. By today’s standards, they were barbaric. Killing off entire cultures unless they accepted “Jupiter”, enslaving those they conquered, etc. Now, would I be correct to judge the Roman empire as being this backwards, primitive and bloodthirsty giant beast that I can simply brush off without looking at its accomplishments and such?
The same goes for Islam. Yes, it was also an Imperial Empire from its inception, obviously expansionist, and every now and then would kill off peoples who didnt accept “Allah”. (Sound familiar?) So now I wonder. Do you place the Roman Empire in the same morally defunked pot as you do Islam, based simply on that fact that both were violent imperial systems? Furthermore, do you turn a blind-eye towards the progress Islam made to its people AT THAT TIME, as you turn a blind eye towards the Romans did for Romans AT THAT TIME?
In other words: If you are going to condemn anceint Empires on their appetite for violence and subjugation, then Steve, you are going to have to do ALOT of condemning. That being said, and given the context, it is a big leap to imply that Islam [i]today[/i] has expansionist Imperialist ambitions, since they did so way back when. Back then, everybody was “in” on it. If you had an empire, why of course! You have to conquer!
You are associating the desire for conquest of Empires due to their time, with and ideology of the Empire, with the ideological decendants 1400 years later, and then saying: “So they want conquest too!” And that my accusing friend, is a loooong meanigless chain.
-Ibn
Oh and Steve,
To assist you in your determination of whether or not my grandma was indeed responsible in any way whatsoever for Sep11, here is the definition of “responsible” as an adjective, also from http://www.dictionary.com, which I discovered once scrolling down some more:
“Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Function: adjective
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 : characterized by trustworthiness, integrity, and requisite abilities and resources
3 : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
4 : marked by or involving accountability —re·spon·si·bil·i·ty noun —re·spon·si·ble·ness noun —re·spon·si·bly adverb ”
I look forward to your responses!
-Ibn
——————
Mahmood,
A technical question or two: I cannot get the type fonts and properties to work this HTML – (boldface, italics, etc) – is there a different syntax I must use for your new site?
Thanks
Ibn … nice.
Ah, I’m not using BBCode for this one, you must use the usual html tags like < strong > < em > etc.
Not so. The Italians don’t go around killing people for religion, nor do the Spaniards, and whatever other civilisations you care to mention. The Muslim terrorists however, due to Jihad NOT being condemned in Islam – or at least limited in a clear and defined frame – can still go around beheading people while shouting Allah Akbar and jumping up and down with the severed head and brandish the killing knife and maybe firing their AK-47s to double the pleasure (and hopefully get hit by a ricocheting bullet while they’re at it.)
This has got to be reformed along with a slew of other defunct laws which have been put in place to deal with situations 1,400 years old.
I dont think we need to blame any book of God, Imperial Regime or any “school of thought” for the war and murder in the world, now or in the past. Read back through this blog, you guys don’t need any help when it comes to intolerance or forcing your beliefs on others. It is human nature……blah blah blah…It is our “Creator’s” fault we are like this. We always have been and always will be. Makes things much more interesting though dont you think?
Steve I don’t believe there was any kindness on the part of the American government. The only reason the Mescalero Apache got the reservation in the Sacramento’s rather than being put on the Pecos or being sent to Florida then Alabama then to the Ft. Sill reservation like the Chiricahua was that not one nugget of gold was found. One nugget and they wouldn’t have had their reservation.
Well, I did mark it as a rant.
However one part of that rant DOES hold. Fiqh is ‘I pissed on this land last, therefore it’s mine’ – there’s a reason why Andalucia is still prized by the Islamists. They pissed on it last, therefore its owned by the Muslims forever.
On the other hand, Steve, habibi, the Native Americans have been repressed by every single colonizing influence on the North American continent since the 1500′s.
I will agree that they were not a ‘civilizing’ force in the past. North American indians were basically a stone age/bronze age tribal civilization. But the way they have been treated in the past has been atrocious.
The concept of ‘reservations’ is -almost- no better than Dhimmitude.
At least the US doesn’t send in troops to humiliate the natives and extract special ‘Dhimmi taxes’ from them, or force them to convert. In fact, it’s the other way around – the Casinos are ‘taxes’ on those that go and lose money at them, and a lot of people are more interested in Native American spirituality than not these days.
Mahmood:
How do you do the cool ‘quote’ things?
Yoohoooo Gracie !!!
You’re not avoiding giving me a Yes or a No, are you?
Ethan, I’ll write a quick help file today and put it up, this theme is pretty restrictive in its simplicity, and I don’t have time at the moment to go into a full scale re-engineering to fix it to the way I want it to look.. it’ll happen one of these days however.
To answer your question, the quote thing is done by using the standard html tag “blockquote” between angled brackets, as in < blockquote > but without the spaces in between, then you close it by < /blockquote >
Oh, and another way to really get snazzy with your comments is to switch on the Use the visual rich editor when writing in your personal preference page if you have an account.
“do you find that you, as a follower of Islam, are insulted and that your religion is insulted when another person (professing themselves to be a Muslim) murders an innocent person in the name of Allah? ”
The answer is yes, I am insulted when someone professes to be a Muslim, but has hidden agenda that doesn’t go hand in hand with the true teachings of The Almighty.
I also get insulted when someone lures me into a conversation, puts words in my mouth, just to prove a point. Not that you have done that (wink)
Peace
PS. I am travelling tonight. Going back home….. Take care all….
Mahmood,
Not so. The Italians don’t go around killing people for religion, nor do the Spaniards, and whatever other civilisations you care to mention. The Muslim terrorists however, due to Jihad NOT being condemned in Islam – or at least limited in a clear and defined frame – can still go around beheading people while shouting Allah Akbar and jumping up and down with the severed head and brandish the killing knife and maybe firing their AK-47s to double the pleasure (and hopefully get hit by a ricocheting bullet while they’re at it.)
This has got to be reformed along with a slew of other defunct laws which have been put in place to deal with situations 1,400 years old.
Umm, ..*confused* …I agree that Islam has alot of reformation to go through… I dont understand why you have mentioned the top part of your paragraph though….even though I dont disagree with it – I guess Im seeing it as a non-sequitor…
So when you said:
“Not so. The Italians don’t go around killing people for religion, nor do the Spaniards, and whatever other civilisations you care to mention.”
Well yes, but I didnt imply or say the opposite of that statement.
The initial point, was to draw attention to the false association between
“Islam was an Imperial religion 1400 years ago” –>
“Therefore Muslims 1400 years later also want Imperial rule.”
Where “Muslims” refers to the mean.
-Ibn
Wow. The above post came out weird – HTML errors in fonts.
Please differenciate between Mahmood’s comments and mine.
-Ibn
Ibn, you mentioned that 1400 years later, Islam has no relation to the violence it perpetrated at the time of its spread. I maintained that that very reasoning (condoning violence to spread the religion hundreds of years ago) is still sanctioned today – without change – in the scripture and the hadiths, and it is these texts which are taken to heart by the terrorists to perpetrate their terror, whether against the “infidel” West, or other Muslims, be they Shi’a being killed in suicide missions most probably perpetrated by extremist Sunnis, or those who were unfortunate enough to be called Omar by extremist Shi’as.
have a good flight, and safe home Grace.
Mahmood said:
“still sanctioned today – without change – in the scripture and the hadiths, and it is these texts which are taken to heart by the terrorists to perpetrate their terror, ”
Yes, I agree with you on this. But what I am differentiating is that the texts condoning violence to spread Islam, are more of a product of their time period, than a derivative of Islam itself as a religion. That is the differentia I am pointing to. To clarify my position further:
To use an analogy: Islam forbade eating pork, because of the obvious un-hygenic nature of pigs at that time, with no way to properly process the meat. Therefore eating it would result in death, disease, etc. So Islam outright forbade it. So the forbiding decree is again, more of a product of the time period itself – (no processing plants, farming tech, etc).
Thus, if someone were to condemn Islam on not allowing for freedom of choice of foods for example, he would not be judging in context – because the outright ban on pork, stemmed not from a malevolent intent to subjugate ones choices of food…- it was rather the best alternative for THAT time period, in regards to what to eat. That is the essense of my point.
P.S. Just to be clear, I do not condone violence to spread a religion.
-Ibn
I understand that position, but the problem I am highlighting that even though these are topical situations for treating an ill at the time, they are still relevant today as they are still part of the scripture and interpreted as valid in this day and age. Rather than explaining their historical context and that inapplication today, clerics/people see them as valid then, valid now. Hence, Islam remains static.
Mahmood said:
“they are still relevant today as they are still part of the scripture and interpreted as valid in this day and age. Rather than explaining their historical context ”
So, it looks like we are saying the same thing – I am pointing out the importance of judging in context as when someone like Steve does it, while you are chastizing the Imams who also drop context. So yes, dropping contexts in both cases will result in, … droppings.
-Ibn
The problem, Mahmood and Ibn, is not really the context. Yes, the sword verses fit in the context of an expansionist religion. Yes the anti-pork verses speak of times when pork wasn’t cooked right. Yes the Koran’s injunction against Alcohol is to keep warriors ready for battle.
The problem is that the Koran (where all of these injunctions are found) is treated as the eternal word of God, and thus is unchangeable. The eternal words of God can have no real context. They are valid for -all times-. Rationalizing context with a literalist is pissing into the wind.
Only by treating the Koran as a historical book written by man does Islam have a prayer of reforming.
But if the Koran is a book written by men, why be Muslim? There are hundreds of other religions out there that are far more spiritual, and have lfewer restrictions for the same end result. That’s the fear. Loss of control of the masses. Religious and therefore political freedom.
The Imams fear it. Mohammed feared it. Therefore ‘All those who change their religion should be killed’.
Ethan said:
‘The problem is that the Koran (where all of these injunctions are found) is treated as the eternal word of God, and thus is unchangeable.’
(bold mine)
Key work here Ethan: ‘Treated’. Treated is a verb, requiring an actor, requiring a human. Furthermore, ‘treated’ is a verb as it pertains in this context meaning how said human actor treats…judges such words- dare I say ‘In what context said actor takes it in.’?
So again, yes, context.
Bringing us back to Mahmood’s point as well as mine. Already covered.
-Ibn