Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Chushin wrote:

I’ve often wondered why, when radicals march; carry signs calling for beheadings, the overthrow of governments, & killing of Christians; preach hatred; riot; etc, there are not MASSIVE counter-demonstrations.

Assuming there ARE many, many more moderates, why do they not just overwhelm the radicals with (peaceful) numbers?

I’d imagine some such current (albeit smaller-scale)efforts don’t get much press, but if the efforts were overwhelming (on the order of the “March on Washington” or the “Million Man March”), they could hardly be ignored. And they’d have a huge impact on the thinking of non-Muslims, as well.

Perhaps you should organize an annual European Muslims for Peace March?

Well, here are 150,000 of Lixy’s countrymen taking to the streets of Casablanca protesting against Al Qaeda a few years ago. I think Lixy mentioned that he took part in that demonstration, but I may be mistaken.

Remember: just because CNN (or NHK) doesn’t report it, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-muslim-demonstration-against.html

V,

Great stuff. Thanks.

Is there more you can show me (or should I just do some kind of a search)?

Do these kinds of things happen with any regularity?

Thanks again.
[/quote]
You can sift through these at your leisure:

283

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Mohammad did not end tribalism. He made Islam a tribe. if you were in it, you were with him, if you were not you were to be converted to his faith or pay a tribute to the tribe or be killed as a non-believer.

A tribe is a smallish social unit consisting of mostly a major clan and minor supporting clans with little or no political structure. By your (re)definition the US revolution made us into a tribe. Nope.

Tribalism is a great way to run a small mostly agrarian society. Look at the Scottish Highlands. There is an undeniable attraction there. When the stakes are a few camels or haggis it can be fine. This is why the Arab have such strong romanticized feelings about it. It does not scale to a national level and the downsides e.g. racism is a common corollary, warfare is automatically genocidal and warlordism is the way to get ahead mean that in the modern era, it is pernicious to those who try to follow it.

Just to put this in high relief, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, everybody has to do it. In one of these countries (this is what I’ve read and I admit I’ve never been to one), a judge’s ruling, even if he is on their version of the Supreme Court might be completely ignored outside of those regions where his family has influence. Look at Iraq (or most of the other armies in the Middle East). The heads of the Air Force, Navy etc. were all Saddam cronies because it was far more important to have someone watching rather than competence. Indeed, a smart up and coming colonel could stage a coup (e.g. Qadaffi) so they tend to get shot. I read an interview with most recent head of the Saudi Royal Air Force a while back. He was a prince who had taken some flying lessons and I swear the man was a moron. Gee, I wonder why the Saudis want to have the US military parked nearby to bail them out…

I any case, competence in many cases is secondary to loyalty. Any sort of national law will get trumped at the local level by tribal law. Think of how well the US would work if we stuck the Hatfields and McCoys in charge of everything and you start to get the picture.

Since this is relevant to the thread, other Muslims (such as Indonesians, Indians) do not have these same political issues (the Wahabis are working hard to export it though and treat Islam as a personal possession, which confuses the faithful to no end). I would argue that Islamic radicals are an Arab phenomenon and should be dealt with as an issue of the astonishingly ineptness of their regimes. The complete and massive failures of these governments (often referred to as kleptocracies) has created a backlash in these countries for the good old days, which are interpreted as a return to yet more tribalism.

And I could be wrong…

– jj[/quote]

It all falls apart though when you consider nationalism to be a modern form of tribalism.

Maybe we cannot overcome tribalism but only push it to an ever more abstract level, including more and more people.

Which, and I could be wrong was already suggested 2000 years ago.

284

Dear Genghis,

(I’ve always wanted to start a letter with that. Forgive me…)

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
jj-dude wrote:
Doesn’t it behoove you to exterminate every member? – jj

I do not think that anyone has come to this conclusion. Most of the people here would say that Muslims need to do some introspective thinking and change within their ranks to weed out the people who would exterminate every member of another religion who does not believe as they do.
[/quote]

Agreed. I was pointing out that the line of inquiry would leave that inference unsaid. That’s a bad place to quit discussing it, don’t you think?

No, I didn’t. Getting rid of tribalism means having the members work for a purpose that transcends the immediate goals of their clan. In the case of Genghis Khan, the Mongols did this. He brought them together under the banner of the 9-tailed snake as his first goal and then embarked on his second which was to conquer the world. Each army or horde was run by a crony.

What kept the world from a nasty drubbing? Genghis’s death. Stopped the Mongols dead in their tracks for a dynastic squabble. He did not succeed in changing the overall course of Mongol history though. His son Kublai put the Mongols back together but it was his rule that kept them there.

On his death, the entire empire disintegrated again. Each horde (given a color designation, e.g. the Golden Horde) became a separate political entity and everybody fell into making war against each other. Their accomplishments were great, it is true, but only while they were unified.

Having country- or empire-wide institutions that can survive a change in government and keep the needs of the whole ahead of any one group are what start making nations. (Our solution is the bureaucracy and civil service, btw. When the president’s term is up, we don’t have a civil war it’s just life as usual.) The Arabs accomplished this under Mohamed.

It is true that they thought they were on a mission from God but for a while, tribes were of secondary importance. People were appointed in the Caliphate based on their abilities and the idea that all were ultimately equal before God gave a strong egalitarian push to the whole, which was very well ahead of anything in the West at the time. The peoples that converted had their learning added to the whole.

Did you realize that most of our ancient Greek and Latin literature only survives as copies from that period, often with heavy and illuminating annotations in Arabic? I think that the West has come up with a similar open system that is secular, which is why it has been so successful.

As time wore on, the older system of tribes re-asserted itself, so that by about 1000 Arab commentators were already wondering out loud about why their culture didn’t seem to be as vibrant as in the old days.

Why is it, one wrote, that as soon as the Arabs take over something, it ceases to be productive? (Don’t have the cite in front of me, so this is from memory, be warned.)* The invasion by the Mongols crushed what was left of the Arabs and in the chaos that followed, they reverted back to tribalism almost completely.

– jj

285

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
So… Remember all those weird & nasty laws in Deuteronomy? Like stoning people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Whatever happened to them? Christians and Jews just sort of forgot about them because the society changed. Bringing them up gets a snicker and a shrug usually. [/quote]

Not sure why a Christian would snicker. Christ himself sort of lead by example, in those matters. He didn’t make room for stoning prostitutes, much less for stick collecting.

286

[quote]lixy wrote:
But if you got any ideas (not wisecracks!), do share. [/quote]

Yeah, stop preaching hatred toward the West. That’s a start. Maybe people would take you serious then.

287

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Why do you have to dig up the Tamil Tigers to indict Buddhism? Why not give examples of one of the Buddhas killing in gods name?
[/quote]

Samuaris were Buddhists.

288

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Remember: just because CNN (or NHK) doesn’t report it, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-muslim-demonstration-against.html
[/quote]

Then, instead of bitching about America, he should be showing people this kind of stuff. If CNN is not getting their efforts out, they should find another way to broadcast it.

289

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Why is it, one wrote, that as soon as the Arabs take over something, it ceases to be productive? (Don’t have the cite in front of me, so this is from memory, be warned.)* The invasion by the Mongols crushed what was left of the Arabs and in the chaos that followed, they reverted back to tribalism almost completely.

– jj

[/quote]

Thanks for the reply. I would not say the Muslims resorted back to tribes after the Mongol invasion. There were just more tribes of followers at that point. Yeah there was a Caliphate, but there were always tribes of Muslims. At the time of the Crusades, these were some of the different groups of Muslims around the world: Fatimids, Karakhanids, Ghaznids, Abbasids, Seljuks, Samanids, Kakuyids, Assassins, Danishmends and Ortokids.
So, they were already split into tribes as it was.

Interestingly, the thing that broke much of the Mongol’s power was when one of the many grandsons of Genghis became a Muslim and declared war on the Ilkhans.

290

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
I think you should consider the facts of the religion before you consider the behaviour of it’s followers.

…

Where is your proof? Just saying something and spreading dissent and hate? How are you different from a Nazi yourself?

Specific treaties like Hudaybiyyah were specifically time-limited due to the length of peace treaties tribally ordained in Arabia at the time. Breaking a peace treaty in Islam is forbidden unless the other side attacks, in which case Muslims are obligated to defend themselves to their fullest capability.

  • Quote of note: “[when the entire world is ruled by Islam] then even the smallest rock will call out ‘there is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and cut off his head!’”

Once again, proofs, texts, quotes? Where is it all? I hate to sound rude, but me just replying to your claims is tedious.

This event is in hadith the pertain to the time when a large collection of Jews will join the armies of the Antichrist. The Jews in question here will not be just any Jews being killed due to ‘anti-semitic’ beliefs or anything of the sort, these will be Jews who will be fought because they joined the army of the Anti-Christ (called Dajjal in Islam). And btw, this doesn’t mean that Jews are evil either, a lot of Muslims weak in faith and other peoples will be part of Dajjal’s army as well.

  • Islam is not a religion. It is a violent, expansionist political system with a religious aspect.

I have already addressed this.

-A Muslim must believe in all of the scriptures sent by Allah to His different Messengers. A Muslim must believe in every scripture mentioned by Allah in the Qurân. Allah sent them and they are the actual Word of Allah.
The scriptures that Allah mentions in the Qurân are as follows:

  1. The scrolls that were revealed to Abraham (peace be upon him).
  2. The Torah that was revealed to Moses (peace be upon him).
  3. The Psalms that were revealed to David (peace be upon him).
  4. The Gospel that was revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him).
  5. The Qurân that was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him).
    At the same time, the Muslims do not consider the Bible that is presently in circulation in various editions and versions to be an accurate representation of the older scriptures that were revealed before the Qurân. According to the Qurân, people have changed these scriptures for their own worldly ends. What remains of them is a mixture of truth and falsehood.

-The Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them) were people who received revelation from Allah. They were sent to humanity to teach people the truth and to guide them to the path of salvation. None of the Prophets and Messengers share in any part of Allah’s divinity. They were merely human beings. It is forbidden for a Muslim to worship them in any way. A Muslim should never invoke them, make supplications to them, or seek Allah’s mercy and forgiveness through them. All such things are acts of polytheism, and anyone who practices such things is outside of the fold of Islam.

Allah had sent Prophets throughout the ages to different nations of people all over the world. A Muslim must believe in all of the Prophets and Messengers. Allah in the Qurân has mentioned some of them. Among those who have been mentioned by name are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all.)

All of the Prophets and Messengers came with the religion of Islam. They were all Muslims. The people who truly followed these Prophets when they came were also Muslims. For example, when Moses came, anyone who truly followed him was Muslim until the time of the next Prophet. Likewise, when Jesus came, it was obligatory for everyone to accept him if they were to be considered Muslims. All the Prophets and Messengers called humanity to worship Allah alone without ascribing to Him any partner, and they all submitted completely to the will of Allah, which is Islam.

The Prophets, from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them) were all brothers in faith. They all called to the same truth. Different Messengers came with different sets of laws that Allah sent with them to govern the people, but the essence of their teachings was the same. They all called people away from the worship of created things to the worship of the Creator.

Muslims love and respect all of the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. If a person rejects or dislikes any one of them, that person is not a Muslim.

And all this belief is based on two things: the Quran, and the Sunnah (sayings of Prophet Muhammad pbuh), we are not permitted to make up things in the religion based on what we think or prefer.[/quote]

Ahh. The standard taqiyya (lying to infidels), though when I use this term, you’ll repeat the nonsense about taqiyya applying only to the Shia in Sunni areas, but let’s continue.

If lying is only allowed on the battlefield, then I guess it’s allowed anywhere within the confines of Dar al-Harb (the House of War - non-Islamic lands). Keep in mind, dear reader, that shoebolt is currently located in Dar al-Harb as his profile says he’s in Canada.

His further taqiyya attempts to place Mohammed’s enjoinders to warfare in the context of defensive war. But this is untrue. According to Ibn Kathir, jihad is allowed against all those who disbelieve:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980
"Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah’s statement,

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)"

The former is authoritative commentary on Surah 9:29 of the Qur’an. 9:29 is the oft-quoted “verse of the sword.”

Shoebolt is glazing over the abrogation of peaceful commands in the Qur’an by the violent ones, to wit, Surah’s 9:5, 9:29, and others. Really, this abrogation is better termed “logical contradiction”, as Allah is allowed to say one thing, call it divine revelation, and then completely contradict himself later on down the road. Non-Muslims know better, and simply realize that Mohammed was simply providing the “divine revelation” he needed to further his agenda.

And Islam spread in Africa because Mohammed owned many black persons, as did his followers. They do to this day. Islam spreads by the sword under the banner of “La ilaaha illaalah…”

For those of you who mention Christianity:
Even if Christianity were the most violent religion in the world, it still has no logical connection to the doctrine of Islam. Therefore, discussions of Islam can proceed without understanding the typology behind the invasion of Canaan or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. You can discuss Islam without discussing Christianity. Really.

Usually, throwing Christianity into the mix is just a ploy to confuse the issue and muddy the waters. In debate terms, it’s called a non-sequitur.

291

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
…
[/quote]

Let’s see…first, you refuse to debate in good faith because Muslims allegedly lie through his teeth and claim to know more about Islam than Muslims themselves. Then you speak for all non-Muslims, pretend to know about African history and finally bring up Christianity when the post you quoted makes no reference to it.

Talk about bigotry!

292

“War is deceit” - Mohammed (Bukhari 4:269)

You’re just following the example of al-insan
al-kamil. Acting in bad faith is what Mohammed did. Say, aren’t you in Dar al-Harb right now, living off of the welfare and goodwill of the kuffar?

Why don’t you tell us about the Copts, lixy? Why don’t you tell us about the Egyptian non-Muslims you Arabs conquered so many centuries ago?

293

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
“War is deceit” - Mohammed (Bukhari 4:269)

You’re just following the example of al-insan
al-kamil. Acting in bad faith is what Mohammed did. Say, aren’t you in Dar al-Harb right now, living off of the welfare and goodwill of the kuffar? [/quote]

What on Earth are you talking about? Mohamed had God knows how many assassination attempts on his person, and him and his followers were driven out of their homes. They had to live their families, friends and wealth because the Qurayshi feared the Islamic message would hurt their livelihood. In Madina, they were sieged and had to go weeks without any substantial food.

Me, I have never been oppressed nor harassed about my beliefs. Where’s the harb in this? How can you possibly compare the two situations?

And where do you come off claiming that I live “off the welfare and goodwill of the kuffar”?

If that’s a rhetorical question, then I’m afraid the point you’re trying to make is not clear. If not, what exactly do you want to know about the Copts and the Arab conquest of Egypt?

294

JJ what is driving the jihadists is ideology and dogma. The difference between islam and other religions is that other religions in varying degrees are flexible enough to move on and leave old ways behind.

Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on bringing the worst out of people, but it does have all the right ingredients in spades.

Mohammad himself knew that he had an ideology that was evil and any decent person would reject it. That is why he made the rule that anyone who tries to leave islam should be killed. It’s also why he had a head count five times a day, just like they do in prison.

It’s a stark contrast to the early Christian church where Christians were being executed in the coloseum for being Christian. But they still joined up. It’s all because Jesus had a betyter ideology.

295

Translation: People realized Mohammed was a scheming lunatic with designs on power and they tried to take him out. Too bad they failed. When he came to power in Madinah, he sure turned the tables on them, didn’t he?

The ‘harb’ is in our kuffar, our shirk, or our fitnah, or whatever you want to call it. You’re at war with us because we disbelieve, according to Ibn Kathir and every other authoritative source. Don’t play dumb.

You’re in Sweden, and you aren’t Swedish, and you’re Muslim.

Did the Copts and all the other non-Arab African peoples suddenly just decide Islam was better than Christianity or animism and convert, or were they forced to? Oh, right, their shirk mandated that the Muslims must wage war on them. The Copts, Christians, and animists of Africa must deal with it to this day.

296

No Ghengis, the Samurais were Shintoists who adopted an ideology (Zen) that was based upon Buddhism.

The Emporer of Japan is the head of the Shinto religion. It doesn’t make sense that all the noblemen would be Buddhist while the Emporer would belong to the religion of the lower castes.

The Samurai practiced Zen as a means of clearing their mind to help them in combat. The effect on a good number of them was that they left to become preists because killing no longer made sense.

297

[quote]lixy wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
“War is deceit” - Mohammed (Bukhari 4:269)

You’re just following the example of al-insan
al-kamil. Acting in bad faith is what Mohammed did. Say, aren’t you in Dar al-Harb right now, living off of the welfare and goodwill of the kuffar?

What on Earth are you talking about? Mohamed had God knows how many assassination attempts on his person, and him and his followers were driven out of their homes. [/quote]

See, even his neighbors knew that Islam was just going to start up a clash of civilisations, and tried to nip it in the bud.

298

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jj-dude wrote:
So… Remember all those weird & nasty laws in Deuteronomy? Like stoning people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Whatever happened to them? Christians and Jews just sort of forgot about them because the society changed. Bringing them up gets a snicker and a shrug usually.

Not sure why a Christian would snicker. Christ himself sort of lead by example, in those matters. He didn’t make room for stoning prostitutes, much less for stick collecting.[/quote]

Exactly. Christ was much more peaceful than Muhammed so these religions are incredibly divergent.

299

[quote]lixy wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
…

Let’s see…first, you refuse to debate in good faith because Muslims allegedly lie through his teeth and claim to know more about Islam than Muslims themselves. Then you speak for all non-Muslims, pretend to know about African history and finally bring up Christianity when the post you quoted makes no reference to it.

Talk about bigotry![/quote]

You have yet to act in good faith on this website.

300

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Exactly. Christ was much more peaceful than Muhammed so these religions are incredibly divergent.[/quote]

Letting yourself be crucified goes far beyond a mere peaceful attitude.